LLC Energoalliance v. Republic of Moldova ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LLC KOMSTROY, as successor in interest
to LLC ENERGOALLIANCE,
Petitioner,
Case No. 14-cv-1921 (CRC)
v.
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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.
2
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.
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
Date: October 2, 2019
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. 2015). As is “standard practice,” this formula compounds
prejudgment interest annually. Id.
3