LLC KOMSTROY, as successor in interest to LLC ENERGOALLIANCE, Petitioner,
v.
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER JUDGE
On
August 23, 2019, the Court issued a memorandum opinion
confirming a foreign arbitral award in Petitioner's favor
but deferred issuing a final judgment. Because the award had
to be converted from Moldovan lei to U.S. dollars and updated
to reflect the prejudgment interest that had accrued since
the award was issued on October 25, 2013, the Court postponed
determining the total amount of the judgment and solicited
supplemental briefing from the parties on that question.
However, the Order accompanying that memorandum opinion
inadvertently and erroneously stated that the Order was final
and appealable.
Petitioner
LLC Komstroy filed a brief detailing its calculation of a
proposed total judgment amount. Mot. for J. at 2;
id. Ex. A & B. Instead of responding to
Petitioner's calculations, Respondent Republic of Moldova
(“Moldova”) appealed the Court's August 23,
2019 Order and submitted a response in which it argued that
the Court no longer had jurisdiction due to its prior
issuance of a “final appealable order.” Response
at 1-2. In reply, Petitioner moved to strike Moldova's
response for failing to comply with the Court's order
instructing the parties to submit briefing on the total
judgment amount. Reply at 1-2. In the alternative, Petitioner
sought leave to respond to Moldova's argument that the
Court lacks jurisdiction. Id.
As a
threshold matter, this Court retains jurisdiction to
determine the amount of the judgment. Although the Order
accompanying the August 23, 2019 Memorandum Opinion stated
that it was a final appealable order, that statement was a
clerical error. As such, contrary to Moldova's argument,
the Court's designation of that Order as “final and
appealable” did not instantly divest this Court of
jurisdiction. See Ciralsky v. C.I.A., 355 F.3d 661,
667 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (noting that a district court's
characterization of an order as “a final appealable
order” did not bind the Circuit). The August 23, 2019
Order plainly was not final because it did not “end[]
the litigation on the merits and leave[] nothing for the
court to do but execute the judgment, ” Franklin v.
D.C., 163 F.3d 625, 628 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting
Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)),
given that the Order expressly indicated that the Court still
needed to calculate the final judgment amount. In actions
seeking damages, “a final judgment in a
Petitioner's favor declares not only liability but also
the consequences of liability-what, if anything, the Moldovas
must do as a result.” Id. (citing Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 742 (1976)). The
August 23, 2019 Order “established [Moldova's]
liability, but it granted no relief, it imposed no
obligations on [Moldova], [and] it did not say, as final
decisions in such cases must, ‘who is entitled to what
from whom.'” Id. (quoting Horn v.
Transcon Lines, Inc., 898 F.2d 589, 591 (7th Cir.
1990)). “It therefore was not a final judgment subject
to appeal.” Id.; see also id. (An
order “adjudging liability but leaving the quantum of
relief still to be determined has been a classic example of
non-finality and non-appealability from the time of Chief
Justice Marshall to our own.” (quoting Taylor v.
Board of Educ., 288 F.2d 600, 602 (2d Cir. 1961)
(Friendly, J.)). Accordingly, this Court retained
jurisdiction to consider the total amount of the judgment
notwithstanding Moldova's appeal.
Turning
to the amount of the final judgment, the Court finds that the
properly converted amount of the arbitral award,
pre-interest, is $46, 426, 089.38 in U.S. Dollars
(“USD”), based on a conversion rate of 12.9207
(the rate that existed on the date the arbitral award was
issued, October 25, 2013) and the attorney fees and
arbitration costs awarded by the arbitration tribunal, which
were assessed in USD. Further, the Court finds that
Petitioner is entitled to prejudgment interest in the amount
$12, 164, 969.12 USD, which was calculated using the average
prime interest rate between October 25, 2013 (the date that
the arbitral award was issued) and October 2, 2019 (the date
of judgment). In total, Petitioner is presently entitled to a
judgment in the amount of $58, 591, 058.50 USD.[1] Additionally,
Petitioner is entitled to post-judgment interest starting on
October 2, 2019, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
For the
foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Petitioner's
Motion to Affirm the arbitral award in the amount of $58,
591, 058.50 USD. The Court denies Petitioner's Motion to
Strike as moot. A separate Order shall accompany this
memorandum opinion.
---------
Notes:
[1] The Court calculated the total amount
of the award using the formula M = P*(1 i)˄n, where
“P” is a principal amount of the award,
“i” is the annual rate of interest, and
“n” is the number of years that interest ran to
determine compound prejudgment interest. See Cont'l
Transfert Technique Ltd. v. Fed. Gov't of Nigeria,
932 F.Supp.2d 153, 166 n.7 (D.D.C. 2013), aff d 603 Fed.
App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. ...