Madison Pacific Trust Corporation v. Sergiy Groza and Volodymyr Naumenko

Background

Madison Pacific Trust Corporation filed a petition seeking confirmation, recognition, and enforcement of an arbitration award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, implemented in federal law at 9 U.S.C. §§ 201–208. The respondents, Sergiy Groza and Volodymyr Naumenko, did not appear or respond.

The underlying arbitration concerned Madison Pacific’s role as facility agent and international security trustee for a credit facility involving the respondents’ grain-shipping business. The arbitration took place in London under the rules of the London Court of International Arbitration.

Jurisdictional issue

Because the petition was unopposed, the court explained that it would review Madison Pacific’s submissions in a manner similar to reviewing a motion for summary judgment. The court nevertheless first had to determine whether it had personal jurisdiction—the legal power to exercise authority over the respondents—before reaching the merits of the petition.

The court stated that a federal court may confirm an arbitration award under the Convention if it has personal jurisdiction or jurisdiction over property connected to the dispute. Madison Pacific alleged that Rule 4(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure supplied personal jurisdiction. That rule can apply to a federal-law claim when the defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction in any state and exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution and federal law.

For Rule 4(k)(2), the due-process analysis considers the respondents’ contacts with the United States as a whole, rather than contacts with one particular state. The court noted that due process may support either general jurisdiction, which is based on extensive connections, or specific jurisdiction, which is based on conduct connected to the claim.

Madison Pacific’s petition appeared to rely on general jurisdiction. It alleged that the respondents had funded legal fees and living expenses with money allegedly provided by Vivacity MK LLC, described as a United States company, and that the respondents or companies they controlled engaged in transactions involving United States dollars. The court said it could not find another reference to Vivacity MK LLC in the record and was not persuaded that receiving funds from a United States entity or using United States dollars, without more, established general jurisdiction consistent with due process and Rule 4(k)(2).

Order

The court directed Madison Pacific to supplement its filings no later than December 19, 2025, with authority and evidence supporting the existence of personal jurisdiction over Groza and Naumenko. The court stated that failure to do so will result in dismissal of the petition without further notice.

The order did not decide whether the arbitration award should be confirmed or enforced. Judge P. Kevin Castel signed the order.