Court Opinion

ID: 9928204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 23:01:06.16822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:50:34.774348
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 ARCHIRODON CONSTRUCTION
 (OVERSEAS) COMPANY LIMITED,

         Petitioner,
                 v.                                        Civil Action No. 22-1571 (JEB)

 GENERAL COMPANY
 FOR PORTS OF IRAQ, et al.,

         Respondents.

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Petitioner Archirodon Construction (Overseas) Company Limited filed this action to

recognize and enforce an arbitration award against Respondents General Company for Ports of

Iraq (GCPI), the Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Iraq, and the Republic of Iraq itself.

The case arises from a contractual dispute regarding the design and construction of a staging pier

and breakwater for the Al Faw Grand Port in Iraq. On November 25, 2019, a tribunal of the

International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Geneva,

Switzerland, issued an award in favor of Petitioner. Archirodon now moves to enforce the award

under Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., which codifies the 1958

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York

Convention). Although Respondents received a summons, the Petition, and notice of suit in

October 2023, they have never appeared. As confirmation of the award is appropriate, the Court

will grant the Petition.

                                                 1
I.     Background

       The underlying dispute arose out of a November 22, 2012, contract between Archirodon

and GCPI — “a department of the [Iraqi] Ministry of Transport” — for the design and

construction of a staging pier and breakwater for the Al Faw Grand Port in Iraq. See ECF No. 1

(Pet.), ¶¶ 6, 14; ECF No. 1-4 (Contract) at 4–5. GCPI agreed to pay Archirodon a lump sum of

€204,166,506.38 for its work, and Archirodon agreed to complete the project within eighteen

months from the commencement date. See Pet., ¶ 16. The contract also contained an arbitration

clause, which stipulated the parties’ intention to submit any disputes to the International

Chamber of Commerce in Switzerland for arbitration. Id., ¶ 19. The Iraq Minister of

Transportation Hadi Al Ameri signed the contract on behalf of GCPI. Id., ¶ 20.

       During construction, Archirodon experienced a number of delays related to the access

road to the construction site, the soil-settlement rate at the site, and foreign-workforce

recruitment. Id., ¶¶ 21–24. As a result, it did not complete construction of the staging pier and

breakwater by the deadline. Id., ¶ 25. As these complications arose, the parties could not agree

on whether Archirodon was entitled to extensions of time and reimbursement of additional costs

or whether GCPI was instead entitled to impose contractual delay damages. See ECF No. 1-2

(Final Award), ¶¶ 88–111.

       To resolve these differences, the parties commenced arbitration proceedings on March

24, 2016, in the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce

sitting in Geneva. See Pet., ¶ 26. The arbitration tribunal, consisting of three arbitrators,

unanimously rendered a foreign arbitral award of €82,944,276.76, in addition to $7,490,565.74

in costs and expenses, in favor of Petitioner on November 25, 2019. Id., ¶¶ 37–39. The tribunal

also held that Archirodon was not entitled to pre-award interest since such claim had been raised

                                                  2
too late in the proceedings. See Final Award, ¶ 22.5. GCPI has refused to pay the award to

Archirodon. See Pet., ¶ 4.

       Archirodon then filed this action pursuant to Section 207 of the FAA on June 3, 2022, to

confirm the arbitral award against GCPI and also impose liability on two additional parties, the

Ministry of Transport and the Republic of Iraq. See Pet., ¶¶ 1, 54, 67. Petitioner effected service

on Respondents in October 2023. See ECF Nos. 12 (First Certificate of Service), 13 (Second

Certificate of Service), 14-2 (GCPI First Return Receipt); 15-2 (Ministry of Transport First

Return Receipt); 16-2 (Iraq Return Receipt). Although no Respondent has filed an answer to the

Petition, the Court nonetheless proceeds with a full analysis.

II.    Legal Standard

       Judicial review of arbitral awards is “extremely limited.” Kurke v. Oscar Gruss & Son,

Inc., 454 F.3d 350, 354 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “Courts . . . do not sit to hear claims of factual or legal

error by an arbitrator as an appellate court does in reviewing decisions of lower courts.” United

Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987). A court is thus not “authorized

to reconsider the merits of an award even though the parties may allege that the award rests on

errors of fact or on misinterpretation of the contract.” Id. at 36; see Steelworkers v. Enter. Wheel

& Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 599 (1960) (holding award should not be rejected simply because

court’s “interpretation of the contract is different from arbitrator’s”).

       A federal court must instead confirm an award even if it “is convinced [the arbitrator]

committed serious error.” Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509

(2001) (quoting Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000)). An

award, in other words, is legitimate so long as the “arbitrator is even arguably construing or

applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority.” Id. “It is only when the

                                                   3
arbitrator strays from interpretation and application of the agreement and effectively dispense[s]

his own brand of industrial justice that his decision may be unenforceable.” Id. (quoting Enter.

Wheel, 363 U.S. at 597) (quotation marks omitted).

III.   Analysis

       The Court first considers its jurisdiction to entertain the Petition. It next addresses

grounds for non-enforcement, joint and several liability, and the proper calculation of the Award.

       A. Jurisdiction

             1. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

       There are two prerequisites for this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction here. “First, there

must be a basis upon which a court in the United States may enforce a foreign arbitral award; and

second, [Respondents] must not enjoy sovereign immunity from such an enforcement action.”

Diag Human, S.E. v. Czech Republic-Ministry of Health, 824 F.3d 131, 134 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

(quoting Creighton Ltd. v. Gov’t of the State of Qatar, 181 F.3d 118, 121 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).

       As to the first, the Federal Arbitration Act codifies the New York Convention into U.S.

law. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 201–08. It provides that “[a]n action or proceeding falling under the

Convention shall be deemed to arise under the laws and treaties of the United States. The district

courts . . . shall have original jurisdiction over such an action or proceeding, regardless of the

amount in controversy.” Id. § 203. An arbitral award between non-U.S. parties, like the one at

issue here, “falls under the Convention” as long as it “arise[s] out of a legal relationship, whether

contractual or not, which is considered as commercial.” Id. § 202.

       There is no doubt that the Award arises out of such a relationship and thus falls under the

Convention. The fact that Iraq was not a signatory to the New York Convention at the time of

the final award is immaterial. “If the place of the award is in the territory of a party to the

                                                  4
Convention, all other Convention states are required to recognize and enforce the award,

regardless of the citizenship or domicile of the parties to the arbitration.” BCB Holdings Ltd. v.

Gov. of Belize, 110 F. Supp. 3d 233, 243 (D.D.C. 2015) (cleaned up). The arbitral tribunal

issued the Award in Switzerland, and Petitioner seeks enforcement in the United States. As both

countries are parties to the New York Convention, that Convention applies. See, e.g., id.

(reaching same conclusion based on similar facts).

       With respect to the second prerequisite, Petitioner contends that Respondents are not

entitled to sovereign immunity because this matter falls within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities

Act’s exception for arbitral enforcement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6); Chevron Corp. v.

Ecuador, 795 F.3d 200, 204 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (agreeing that under Section 1605(a)(6), no

sovereign immunity where “a foreign state has agreed to arbitrate,” “there is an award based on

that agreement,” and “the award is governed by a treaty signed by the United States calling for

the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards”). More specifically, Petitioner’s argument

seems to be that even though it was GCPI that submitted to arbitration — not the Ministry of

Transport or the Republic of Iraq — the Ministry and Republic are also liable for the award

against GCPI, and hence the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over them pursuant to the

arbitration exception.

       Because that argument premises jurisdiction upon the acts of GCPI, not the Ministry’s or

Republic’s own acts, Petitioner must overcome the “general rule that agencies and

instrumentalities of a foreign nation are presumed to be separate from . . . the foreign state.”

GSS Grp. Ltd. v. Nat’l Port Auth. of Liberia, 822 F.3d 598, 605 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (cleaned up);

TMR Energy Ltd. v. State Prop. Fund of Ukraine, 411 F.3d 296, 301 (D.C. Cir. 2005)

(explaining that presumption of independence “applies to the question of subject matter

                                                  5
jurisdiction under the FSIA”). As the Supreme Court explained in Bancec, that presumption

follows from “[d]ue respect for the actions taken by foreign sovereigns and for principles of

comity between nations.” First Nat. City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba

(Bancec), 462 U.S. 611, 626–27 (1983). In short, “government instrumentalities established as

juridical entities distinct and independent from their sovereign should normally be treated as

such.” Id.

       There are generally two parts to the analysis under Bancec. First, a court determines

whether a respondent “is the sort of entity to which the presumption of separateness applies” —

i.e., whether the foreign sovereign has made a “decision to establish [the] instrumentality with a

juridical entity distinct from the sovereign itself.” Entes Indus. Plants, Constr. & Erection

Contracting Co. v. Kyrgyz Republic, 2020 WL 1935554, at *2–3 (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2020)

(quoting DRC, Inc. v. Republic of Honduras, 71 F. Supp. 3d 201, 209 (D.D.C. 2014)). Second,

it assesses whether such a presumption is overcome, either because the entity in question “‘is so

extensively controlled by its owner that a relationship of principal and agent is created’ or

because ‘recognition of the instrumentality as an entity apart from the state would work fraud or

injustice.’” Id. (quoting Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. La Republica de Venezuela, 200 F.3d

843, 847–48 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). The question at this stage, then, is whether Petitioner has shown

that jurisdiction over the Ministry of Transport and the Republic of Iraq is proper under the

FSIA’s arbitration exception in light of those entities’ relationship to GCPI. The answer is yes.

       Start with the Ministry of Transport. The Court need not delve into the question of

whether the Ministry is entitled to a presumption of separateness from GCPI here because, even

if it is, that presumption would be overcome by the agency relationship between the two. See

Entes Indus. Plants, 2020 WL 1935554, at *6 (presumption of separateness overcome “[w]here

                                                 6
the sovereign exercises control in such a way as to make a separate instrumentality its agent”

such that “the sovereign can be amenable to suit under ordinary agency principles”); see also

Transamerica, 200 F.3d at 848; Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 905 F. 2d

438, 446–47 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

       “[A] sovereign need not exercise complete dominion over an instrumentality . . . in order

to establish a relationship of principal and agent.” Transamerica, 200 F.3d at 849. That said, a

principal-agent relationship cannot arise unless “[1] the parent has manifested its desire for the

subsidiary to act upon the parent’s behalf, [2] the subsidiary has consented so to act, [3] the

parent has the right to exercise control over the subsidiary with respect to matters entrusted to the

subsidiary, and [4] the parent exercises its control in a manner more direct than by voting a

majority of the stock in the subsidiary or making appointments to the subsidiary’s Board of

Directors.” Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1 (1958)). No “mechanical” formula

determines whether such a relationship exists; the question “is inherently fact specific.” Id.

(cleaned up); see also GSS Grp. Ltd., 822 F.3d at 605 (“[E]xplaining the degree of control

necessary to find agency is challenging.”).

       Here, GCPI acted as an agent of the Ministry of Transport, and the Ministry controlled

the Al Faw construction project from start to finish. See Pet., ¶¶ 57–65. GCPI is a “department

of the Ministry of Transport.” Id., ¶ 6. The official tender announcement stated that “[t]he Iraqi

Ministry of Transport / General Company for Ports of Iraq (GCPI)” were announcing the tender

and that the Ministry of Transport had nominated “the fully owned organi[z]ation [GCPI] to act

as implementing agency.” Id., ¶ 58. Initially, the Ministry reviewed the contract with

Archirodon, and it was ultimately signed by “Hadi Al Ameri, Minister of Transportation.” Id.,

¶ 59. Throughout construction, GCPI sought guidance from the Ministry of Transport on basic

                                                  7
administrative support. Id., ¶ 60. When Archirodon requested extensions of time and

reimbursement for additional costs, Ministry officials responded and told Archirodon that senior

Ministry officials would need to participate in any discussions to “bind our party.” Id., ¶¶ 61–65.

These actions and statements evince the relationship between GCPI and the Ministry of

Transport; the Ministry had direct oversight and control over GCPI.

       As for the Republic of Iraq, the Court agrees with Petitioner that jurisdiction is proper

under the first Bancec inquiry: the Ministry of Transport — GCPI’s principal — is an

inseparable part of the Republic, not the sort of entity to which the presumption of separateness

attaches. Id., ¶ 67. Generally, to determine whether such a presumption attaches, “courts can

look for certain characteristic features of independence, which include: creation by an enabling

law that prescribes the instrumentality’s powers and duties; establishment as a separate juridical

entity with the capacity to hold property and to sue and be sued; management by a government-

selected board; primary responsibility for its own finances; and operation as a distinct economic

enterprise that often is not subject to the same administrative requirements that apply to

government agencies.” Entes Indus. Plants, 2020 WL 1935554, at *3 (cleaned up). Those traits,

however, “should [not] be evaluated rigidly or without an appreciation of context.” Id.

       A context-sensitive application of those criteria here indicates that the Ministry of

Transport is not a “separately constituted juridical entit[y]” from the Republic of Iraq with “a

greater degree of flexibility and independence from close political control than is generally

enjoyed by government agencies.” Bancec, 462 U.S. at 623–25. No meaningful distinction can

be drawn between the Ministry of Transport and Iraq itself. Iraq’s own statutory law regards

each Ministry “as the meaning of the word ‘Government.’” See ECF No. 1-18, Exh. B (Iraq’s

Law of Executive Authority Article 1 Paragraph 2 English Translation); Pet., ¶ 69. Indeed, other

                                                 8
courts have held — in different but analogous contexts — that comparable Iraqi ministries are

integral components that perform core sovereign and regulatory functions. See, e.g., Wye Oak

Technology, Inc. v. Republic of Iraq, 2019 WL 4044046, at *20 (D.D.C. Aug. 27, 2019)

(finding that Ministry of Defense is an “integral component” of Republic of Iraq), vacated on

other grounds, 24 F.4th 686 (D.C. Cir. 2022); Servaas, Inc. v. Republic of Iraq, 653 F. App’x 22,

24–25 (2d. Cir. 2011) (drawing “no meaningful legal distinction” between Ministry of Industry

and Republic of Iraq); cf. Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 30 F.3d 148, 151–53

(D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that Bolivian armed forces are governmental, and thus part of Bolivia

itself); Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 333 F.3d 228, 234 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (holding that

Iranian “Ministry of Foreign Affairs must be treated as the state of Iran itself rather than as its

agent”). Similarly, the Ministry of Transport and Iraq are one and the same. The Court thus has

subject-matter jurisdiction over the Ministry and Iraq under the FSIA’s arbitration exception.

       That exception aside, Petitioner also contends — for the avoidance of jurisdictional doubt

— that Respondents have, in any event, waived sovereign immunity under the FSIA. The Court

agrees that, in light of the relationships discussed above, Respondents have effected an implicit

waiver of their immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1) (excepting from FSIA protection any

“foreign state [that] has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication”) (emphasis

added). The D.C. Circuit has found an implied waiver of sovereign immunity when “a foreign

state has agreed to arbitration in another country.” Foremost-McKesson, 905 F.2d at 444. Here,

GCPI — acting for the Ministry and Iraq — contractually agreed to arbitration in Switzerland,

and thus neither it, the Ministry, nor Iraq can rely on immunity to avoid suit. See Pet., ¶ 19.

             2. Personal Jurisdiction

                                                  9
       The FSIA authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a Respondent whenever

subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a) and service of process has been

made in accordance with Section 1608. See 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b); Practical Concepts, Inc. v.

Republic of Bolivia, 811 F.2d 1543, 1548 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (explaining under FSIA that

“subject matter jurisdiction plus service of process equals personal jurisdiction”) (citation

omitted). To facilitate service of process, the FSIA sets forth various ways service may be

effected on different types of foreign entities.

       Section 1608(a) lists four methods, in ranked order, specific to serving “a foreign state or

political subdivision of a foreign state.” The summons and complaint may be delivered, first, “in

accordance with any special arrangement for service between the plaintiff and the foreign state or

political subdivision,” id. § 1608(a)(1), or, second, “in accordance with an applicable

international convention on service of judicial documents.” Id. § 1608(a)(2). If neither of those

methods is available, plaintiffs must attempt service through a third method, “by sending a copy

of the summons and complaint and a notice of suit, together with a translation of each into the

official language of the foreign state, by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be

addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of

the foreign state concerned.” Id. § 1608(a)(3). As a last resort, if service cannot be made

“within 30 days” pursuant to the third method, plaintiffs may have the Court Clerk send the

packet to the Secretary of State for transmittal “through diplomatic channels to the foreign state.”

Id. § 1608(a)(4).

       Section 1608(b), conversely, lists three methods for serving an “agency or instrumentality

of a foreign state.” As under Section 1608(a), the summons and complaint may be delivered,

first, “in accordance with any special arrangement for service,” id. § 1608(b)(1), or, second, “to

                                                   10
an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by

law to receive service of process in the United States” or “in accordance with an applicable

international convention on service of judicial documents.” Id. § 1608(b)(2). If service cannot

be made using any of those approaches, the summons and complaint — along with translations

— may be delivered “as directed by an authority of the foreign state or political subdivision in

response to a letter rogatory or request,” id. § 1608(b)(3)(A); “by any form of mail requiring a

signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the agency or

instrumentality to be served,” id. § 1608(b)(3)(B); or “as directed by order of the court consistent

with the law of the place where service is to be made.” Id. § 1608(b)(3)(C).

       Petitioner has successfully effected service on GCPI, the Ministry of Transport, and the

Republic of Iraq. Specifically, it served Iraq under Section 1608(a), and — out of an abundance

of caution — it served GCPI and the Ministry of Transport under both Section 1608(a) (treating

them as foreign states or political subdivisions thereof) and Section 1608(b) (treating them as

agencies or instrumentalities of a foreign state). The Court briefly walks through those analyses.

       Beginning with Section 1608(a), service was not feasible on any of the Respondents

under the first or second methods because there is no special arrangement for service between

the United States and Iraq, nor is service permitted on Iraq pursuant to any applicable

international convention on service of documents. See id. § 1608(a)(1)–(2); see also U.S. Dept’t

of State, Bureau of Consular Affs., Iraq Judicial Assistance Information (Mar. 29, 2018),

https://perma.cc/ZAX4-AUJD. Petitioner, accordingly, turned to mail service. On October 5,

2023, the Court Clerk sent copies of the summons, the Petition, and notice of suit — together

with translations of each — to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad for each of the

Respondents. See First Certificate of Service. DHL delivered those materials on October 11,

                                                11
2023. See GCPI First Return Receipt, Ministry of Transport First Return Receipt), Iraq Return

Receipt. Service was therefore effected under Section 1608(a)(3).

       As to Section 1608(b), service could not be made on GCPI or the Ministry of Transport

under either of the first two approaches partly for the same reasons explained above: no special

arrangement for service between the United States and GCPI or the Ministry exists, see id.

§ 1608(b)(1), service is not permitted on those entities pursuant to any applicable international

convention on service of documents, and the Court is not aware of any officer or agent

authorized to receive service on their behalf in the United States. See id. § 1608(b)(2).

Petitioner thus asked the Court Clerk to mail the summons, complaint, and translations to GCPI

and the Ministry of Transport pursuant to Section 1608(b)(3)(B). See ECF No. 14-1 (Service

Request); ECF No. 15-1 (Service Request). She did so on October 5, 2023, see Second

Certificate of Service, and DHL delivered the materials on October 26, 2023, thus making

service effective. See ECF No. 14-3 (GCPI Second Return Receipt); ECF No. 15-3 (Ministry of

Transport Second Return Receipt). No Respondent has contested proper service. Personal

jurisdiction is thus proper.

       B. Grounds for Refusal

       The Court further agrees with Petitioner that none of the narrow grounds for non-

enforcement listed in Article V of the New York Convention, incorporated under 9 U.S.C. § 207,

applies here. “[W]hen an action for enforcement is brought in a foreign state, the state may

refuse to enforce the award only on the grounds explicitly set forth in Article V of the

Convention.” TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928, 935 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

(citation omitted). As Respondents offer no grounds for non-enforcement and none exist here,

                                                12
confirmation of the award is mandatory under the New York Convention. See 9 U.S.C. § 207;

Pet., ¶¶ 45–52.

        C. Joint and Several Liability

        The Court next turns to the question of whether Petitioner is correct that the Ministry of

Transport and the Republic of Iraq are jointly and severally liable for the arbitral award against

GCPI. See Pet., ¶¶ 57–66. It need not spend long on this, however, because it has already

concluded that GCPI acted as an agent of the Ministry of Transport and that the Ministry of

Transport is an inseparable component of the Republic of Iraq. Supra Section III.A.1. In light of

those relationships, the Ministry and Republic are liable for GCPI’s actions. See Transamerica,

200 F.3d at 848 (recognizing that Bancec’s analysis applies both for purposes of deciding

whether “a foreign sovereign is . . . amenable to suit based upon the acts of such an

instrumentality” and for determining if a “foreign sovereign is . . . liable for the acts of an

instrumentality of the state”). As a result, the Court concludes that both the Ministry of

Transport and the Republic of Iraq are jointly and severally liable for the Final Award along with

GCPI.

        D. The Award

           1. Conversion of Foreign Currencies

        As to the Award itself, Petitioner first requests that the Court convert the damages portion

of the Award from euros to U.S. dollars. See Pet., ¶ 75. “Conversion of such foreign currency

amounts into dollars at judgment is the norm, rather than the exception.” Cont’l Transfert

Technique Ltd. v. Fed. Gov’t of Nigeria, 932 F. Supp. 2d 153, 158 (D.D.C. 2013), aff’d, 603 F.

App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Indeed, “a judgment in a foreign currency should be issued only when

requested by the judgment creditor.” Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the

                                                  13
United States § 823 cmt. b (1987). Here, Archirodon makes the opposite request; it seeks a

dollar judgment. See Pet., ¶ 75. The Court thus concludes that Archirodon is entitled to

conversion of the foreign-currency portions of its arbitral award into dollars. The Court will

require Petitioner to submit an updated calculation of the Award with the proposed exchange rate

for currency conversion.

           2. Prejudgment Interest

       Next, Petitioner requests that the Court impose prejudgment interest on the Award,

accruing from the date of the Award until the date of this Court’s judgment. See Pet., ¶¶ 73,

77(c). “[W]hether to award prejudgment interest falls within the district court’s discretion.”

Cont’l Transfert, 932 F. Supp. 2d at 163 (citation omitted). Considering “the widely accepted,

remedial purpose of prejudgment interest — which is to compensate the injured party for the loss

of the use of money he would otherwise have had,” courts have recognized that

“a presumption exists in favor of such interest.” Id. (cleaned up). Therefore, “absent any reason

to the contrary, prejudgment interest should normally be awarded when damages have been

liquidated by an international arbitral award.” Id. at 163–64 (cleaned up).

       The Award here did not provide for such interest because Iraqi law does not permit it.

See Final Award, ¶¶ 928–30. The tribunal did not prohibit the claim in subsequent proceedings,

however. Id., ¶ 930. Courts generally grant such requests on foreign arbitral awards, even when

the award does not provide for prejudgment interest. See, e.g., Cont’l Transfert, 932 F. Supp. at

163–64; Waterside Ocean Navigation Co. v. Int’l Navigation Ltd., 737 F.2d 150, 154 (2d Cir.

1984) (granting request for such interest where award did not provide for it because relevant

body of foreign law did not give arbitrators power to do so). Seeing no reason to stray from this

practice, this Court will do likewise.

                                                14
       Petitioner, in addition, asks this Court to award such interest at the U.S. prime rate. See

Pet., ¶ 74. That rate is the “the rate that banks charge for short-term unsecured loans to credit-

worthy customers.” Oldham v. Korean Air Lines Co., 127 F.3d 43, 54 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

Although setting the rate of prejudgment interest is “well within the district court’s discretion,”

Forman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 84 F.3d 446, 450 (D.C. Cir. 1996), the D.C. Circuit has

“indicated a preference — all else being equal — for the use of prime rate rather than the

statutory postjudgment interest rate.” Cont’l Transfert, 932 F. Supp. 2d at 165 (citing Forman,

84 F.3d at 450). The use of the prime rate for prejudgment interest in arbitration confirmation

proceedings is “customary practice.” Id., at 166. Indeed, “the use of the prime rate in the award

of prejudgment interest reflects an appropriate exercise of the district court’s discretion.” Cont’l

Transfert, 603 F. Appx. at 5; see also Oldham, 127 F.3d at 54. The Court will follow suit and

use the prime rate.

       Petitioner also requests that such interest be “calculated on a compound rather than

simple basis.” Pet., ¶ 74. Since “compounding prejudgment interest annually is standard

practice,” the Court will do so. See Cont’l v. Transfert, 932 F. Supp. 2d at 166 n.7.

           3. Post-Judgment Interest

       Archidoron last requests in its prayer for relief that the Court award post-judgment

interest, a topic on which the arbitral decision is silent. See Pet., ¶ 77(d). Post-judgment interest

is the “interest that accrues following this Court’s judgment enforcing the award.” Tenaris, S.A.

v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 2021 WL 1177996, at *2 (D.D.C. 2021). Post-judgment

“[i]nterest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.”

28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Courts in this district have accordingly awarded it in civil judgments

                                                 15
confirming foreign arbitral awards. See, e.g., Global Distressed Alpha Fund I LP v. Red Sea

Flour Mills Co. Ltd., 725 F. Supp. 2d 198, 203 (D.D.C. 2010).

       Congress set forth a federal rate for post-judgment interest in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a):

“[I]nterest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the

weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors

of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment.” This

rate is “mandatory,” unless “the parties agree to a different rate by ‘clear, unambiguous, and

unequivocal language” or “the arbitral award itself ‘explicitly state[s] the interest rate to be

applied ‘post-judgment.’” OI European Grp. B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 2019

WL 2185040, at *6 (D.D.C. 2019); Tenaris, 2021 WL 1177996, at * 2 (citations omitted). As

neither of these exceptions applies here, the Court will award Petitioner post-judgment interest at

the rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).

IV. Conclusion

       For the foregoing reasons, the Court will issue a contemporaneous Order granting the

Petition to Recognize and Enforce Foreign Arbitral Award. It will also order Petitioner to submit

an updated claim calculation and proposed form of judgment.

                                                       /s/ James E. Boasberg
                                                       JAMES E. BOASBERG
                                                       Chief Judge

Date: January 30, 2024

                                                  16