United States District Court, District of Columbia
In The Matter of the Arbitration of Certain Controversies Between SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP., Petitioner, and THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC, Respondent.
Kesdler United States District Judge.
12, 2013, Petitioner Science Applications International
Corporation ("Petitioner" or "SAIC"), now
"Leidos, Inc., " filed a Petition to Confirm
Arbitration Award ("Petition") [Dkt. No. 1] against
Respondent, The Hellenic Republic ("Respondent" or
"Hellenic Republic"). The Petitioner now asks this
Court to confirm an arbitration award granted by the
International Chamber of Commerce International Court of
Arbitration ("ICC") and to enter judgment against
the Hellenic Republic..
September 5, 2013, while the Petition with this Court was
pending, the Hellenic Republic filed an action to set aside
the ICC award in the Athens Court of Appeals. See
Pet.'s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award and to Enter
Judgment at 2-3 [Dkt. No. 20]. On March 27, 2014, the Parties
filed a Joint Motion for a Stay pending a decision by the
Athens Court of Appeals [Dkt. No. 16], which was granted on
March 28, 2014 [Dkt. No. 17]. On June 18, 2014, the Athens
Court of Appeals issued a decision annulling the ICC award.
See Consent Motion for Briefing Schedule [Dkt. No.
18]. On September 8, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion to
Confirm the Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment [Dkt. No.
20] . On November 17, 2014, Respondent filed a Cross-Motion
to Dismiss or to Deny Petition to Confirm Award [Dkt. No.
January 9, 2015, Petitioner filed an appeal of the Athens
Court of Appeals annulment decision with the Supreme Court of
the Hellenic Republic ("the Greek Supreme Court").
As of November 6, 2015, the Parties had not received any
decision by the Greek Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Parties
filed Joint Status Reports on the proceedings before the
Greek Supreme Court, until it issued a decision.
November 2, 2016, the Parties filed a Joint Status Report
notifying this Court of the September 22, 2016, decision of
the Greek Supreme Court [Dkt. No. 48]. It ruled in favor of
Petitioner LEIDOS, Inc. (formerly, Science Applications
International Corporation) reversing the Athens Court of
Appeals decision annulling the arbitration award, and thereby
reinstating the original ICC award to Petitioner. In
addition, the Greek Supreme Court remanded the case back to
the Athens Court of Appeals for a new hearing to address only
one rather minor issue discussed in the Supreme Court's
decision. That hearing is now scheduled for November 16,
response to the November 2, 2016 Joint Status Report, the
Court Ordered the Parties to submit their positions as to
what, if anything, this Court should do, given the fact that
the Greek Supreme Court had ruled [Dkt. No. 49]. On December
16, 2016, Petitioner submitted a Position Brief as to Impact
on Its Arbitration Award Enforcement Petition of Supreme
Court of the Hellenic Republic's Decision
("Pet.'s Position Br.")[Dkt. No. 51].
Respondent submitted its Position Statement that this Court
should deny the Petitioner's request for enforcement of
the decision of the Greek Supreme Court. [Dkt. No. 52].
STANDARD OF REVIEW
the New York Convention, which has been implemented by the
Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2 01 et.
seq., a court "may, if it considers it
proper, adjourn the decision on the enforcement of the
award. . ., " New York Convention Article VI (emphasis
added), and stay proceedings where "a parallel
proceeding is ongoing in the originating country and there is
a possibility that the award will be set aside."
Europcar Italia v. Maiellano Tours, Inc., 156 F.3d
310, 316-18 (2d Cir. 1998). But, of course, the court is not
required to do so. See id.
determining whether to enforce an Arbitration Award against a
foreign state, this Court must balance the factors which
weigh in favor of or against enforcement. Chevron Corp.
and Texas Petroleum Company v. Republic of Ecuador, 949
F.Supp.2d 57, 71-73 (D.D.C. 2013) (applying
Europcar, 156 F.3d at 316-18).
Europcar, the Second Circuit cautioned courts that
" [a]stay of confirmation should not be lightly granted
lest it encourage abusive tactics by the party that lost in
arbitration." Europcar, 156 F.3d at 316-18. In
order to aid judges as they exercise their discretion, the
Second Circuit enumerated a number of factors that should be
considered. They are:
"(1) the general objectives of arbitration-the
expeditious resolution of disputes and the avoidance of
protracted and expensive litigation;
(2) the status of foreign proceedings and the estimated time
for those proceedings to be resolved;
(3) whether the award sought to be enforced will receive
greater scrutiny in the foreign proceedings under a less