Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


February 5, 2004.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES ROBERTSON, District Judge


International Bechtel Company Limited ("Bechtel") petitions this American court for judicial confirmation of an arbitration award issued on February 20, 2002, under the laws of Dubai. The Department of Civil Aviation of the Government of Dubai ("DCA"), the other party to the arbitration, moves to dismiss. The motion raises jurisdictional questions, which I have resolved in petitioner's favor, and a question of international comity, which need not be decided at this time. Further proceedings in this matter will be stayed pending a decision on Bechtel's appeal of the decision of the Dubai Court of First Instance invalidating the award, now pending before the Dubai Court of Cassation. Page 2


  On March 30, 1992, Bechtel and the DCA entered into a written Project Management Services Agreement for the design and construction of a theme park and adjacent commercial and residential developments in Dubai. The parties agreed, inter alia, that any disputes arising from the Agreement would be decided by arbitration. In 1999, a dispute did arise: Bechtel claimed that the DCA had failed to pay Bechtel amounts due and owing to it for services rendered and expenses incurred under the terms of the Agreement; and the DCA counterclaimed that Bechtel had breached its contractual obligations under the Agreement and was liable in damages to the DCA and/or needed to make restitution of payments already received from the DCA. See Final Award, dated February 20, 2002, at 2. Pursuant to the Agreement, on July 26, 2000, the parties met with and began arbitration before Dr. Georg von Segesser, who had been appointed sole arbitrator of the dispute.

  On February 20, 2002, the arbitrator issued an extensive written opinion, awarding Bechtel approximately $24.4 million in damages, costs and legal fees, and dismissing the DCA's counterclaims for approximately $42 million. On April 7, 2002, after the DCA had failed to satisfy the award, Bechtel filed a petition in the Dubai Court of First Instance to confirm the arbitration award. Page 3

  On April 22, 2002, the DCA filed a complaint in the same Dubai court, seeking to overturn the award. In a written opinion dated November 16, 2002, the Court of First Instance rejected five of the six arguments put forth by the DCA but overturned the award on the sixth, finding that witnesses in the arbitration had not taken oaths in the form prescribed by Dubai law:
As for the last ground in the suit statement concerning the invalidity of the award on the ground that the witnesses did not take oath prior to hearing their statements[,] . . . the arbitrator . . . is bound to comply the procedures stipulated in the Arbitration Chapter. As such, . . . the violation of such requirement renders the procedure invalid, which affects the award.
  . . . Article 41/2 of the [Civil Procedure] Law determined the form of the oath to be taken by a witness, namely: "I swear by the Almighty to tell the truth and nothing but the truth". Upon taking the oath, the religion of the witness shall take into consideration, if the witness requires the same. The purpose of stipulating to take the oath or to put a witness to oath . . . is to give such statement a frame leading to the truth with the exclusion of lying, deviation or fancy, so that the statement becomes a satisfactory decisive evidence, and satisfaction arises from taking the oath. The statement of a witness will not be valid and certain unless the witness takes the oath . . . [nor will] anything that relies on such statement, as it becomes ineffective and cannot, accordingly, be relied upon, particularly if such statement is the evidence on which the award relied. It is imperative that the arbitrator puts a witness on oath prior to giving his statement, which may not be ignored or made other than in the form provided by the law, as above quoted. It is established from the award, the subject matter of the suits, that the arbitrator did not address the oath in the above form as provided in the law upon hearing witnesses William G. Leuing, Tilak Raj Billo, Christopher Page 4 Hertzell, Steven Martin, Keith Kennedy, Ann Saha, Christopher Brown, Mohamed Saleh Al Saleh, HH Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed Al Maktoum, Abdullah Al Hashimi, Simon Azzam, Surish Kumar, Masood Hasan Dariwala, Robert Burnett and W. Michael. As such, the requirements for the validity of the respective statements of the above witnesses were not available, which renders the said statements invalid and also renders everything established on such statements invalid. Whereas the award relied on the statements of the above witnesses without putting them to oath as above quoted, the award, the subject matter of the suits, is invalid because it relied on an invalid procedure.
 Int'l Bechtel Co. Ltd. v. Dep't of Civil Aviation of Gov't of Dubai, case No. 288/2002 [Court of First Instance], at 6-8. The court rejected Bechtel's arguments that the DCA had waived its objection to the form of the oaths by failing to object on that ground during the arbitration, or by agreeing in advance that the arbitration award would be final and binding and that there would be no appeal to any court. See Agreement, at ¶ 19B. The court explained:
[T]he party who is originally required to comply with the procedures stipulated under the law, is the arbitrator, but not the litigants. Administering oath on witnesses is an imperative requirement under Article 211 of the Civil Procedures Law, which the arbitrator should comply with even if the litigants have agreed otherwise.
. . .
  Article 216/2 of the Civil Procedures Law . . . provides that "The acceptance of a request to invalidate an award shall not be affected by the waiver of a litigant of its right to such invalidation prior to the issuance of the award". Moreover, it may not be held to the request to invalidate the award before the arbitrator himself but such request may be held thereto either under a separate suit or during the hearing of Page 5 the suit brought before the court to confirm such award.

 Int'l Bechtel, [Court of First Instance], at 9.

  Bechtel appealed the Court of First Instance ruling to the Dubai Court of Appeal on December 14, 2002. While that appeal was pending, on February 19, 2003, Bechtel filed its petition in this Court. On June 8, 2003, the Dubai Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance. Bechtel has taken that decision to the highest court of Dubai, the Court of Cassation, where Bechtel's appeal remains pending.*fn1


  Bechtel has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (a),*fn2 asserting that the DCA is a foreign state as defined in § 1603(a) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. ("FSIA"), and that its claim falls Page 6 under two of the FSIA's exceptions to immunity: for commercial activities, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), and for arbitration awards, 28 U.S.C. § 1604 (a)(6).*fn3

  The DCA's jurisdictional argument does not meet Bechtel's jurisdictional allegations. It focuses instead on the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. ("FAA"), and maintains that "Bechtel seeks to invoke jurisdiction here solely under the FAA . . . [b]ut the FAA does not apply because the Agreement explicitly states that Dubai law governs, and Dubai law expressly designates the Dubai Court as the exclusive forum for confirmation of the arbitration award." Resp't Mem., at 4-5 (emphasis in original). But Bechtel does not assert that the FAA confers subject matter jurisdiction in this Court, and clearly it does not.*fn4 It is the FSIA that "provides the sole basis for Page 7 obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the courts of this country," Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 443 (1989); see also id. at 434 ("Sections 1604 and 1330(a) work in tandem: § 1604 bars federal and state courts from exercising jurisdiction when a foreign state is entitled to immunity, and § 1330(a) confers jurisdiction on district courts to hear suits brought by United States citizens and by aliens when a foreign state is not entitled to immunity." (emphasis omitted)).

  "At the threshold of every action" against a foreign state, the Court must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction by "apply[ing] the detailed federal law standards set forth in the [FSIA]." Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 493-94 (1983). The DCA has not responded to Bechtel's petition on the merits. Its motion to dismiss does not assert immunity under the FSIA or challenge the facts upon which Bechtel relies in invoking the commercial activities and arbitration award FSIA exceptions. The D.C. Circuit has held that "if the sovereign makes a `conscious decision to take part in the litigation,' then it must assert its immunity under the FSIA either before or in Page 8 its responsive pleading.'" Phoenix Consulting Inc. v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 39 (B.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 905 F.2d 438, 443-45 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). This is because "failure to assert the immunity after consciously deciding to participate in the litigation may constitute an implied waiver of immunity, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1), which invests the court with subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a)." Id. (citing H.R. Rep. No. 94-1487, at 18 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6604, 6616-17); but see id. at 39 n.*.

  I make no ruling as to whether the BCA has consciously decided to take part in this litigation. Suffice it to say that there is nothing now of record to indicate that this Court does not have ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.