WJ Holding Limited v. Transdniestrian Moldovian Republic
- Laura Swain
- 1:19-cv-06260
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In WJ Holding v. Transdniestrian Moldovian Republic, Judge Swain granted summary judgment confirming $12,423,247, denied pre-judgment interest, and ordered a response about dismissing other claims.
WJ Holding Limited received confirmation of the $12,423,247 damages award against the Transdniestrian Moldovian Republic on Count I. The Republic is subject to that confirmed award, while the court sought WJ Holding’s explanation before deciding whether to dismiss the remaining claims and claims against Transnistrian Republican Bank and CJSC Transnistrian Sberbank without prejudice.
What happened
WJ Holding Limited asked the court to confirm an arbitration award against the Transdniestrian Moldovian Republic after an arbitration panel found that the Republic breached a contract and awarded $12,423,247 in damages. The Republic had participated in the arbitration but did not respond or appear in this court.
The court treated WJ Holding’s request as an unopposed motion for summary judgment rather than a request for a default judgment because the arbitration record provided a basis for deciding whether to confirm the award. The court found no genuine dispute preventing confirmation of the damages award.
Judge Swain granted summary judgment confirming the $12,423,247 damages award on Count I, denied any request for pre-judgment interest, and stated that post-judgment interest would accrue under federal law. She also ordered WJ Holding to explain why the remaining claims and claims against the other respondents should not be dismissed without prejudice.
The detailed version
- WJ Holding Limited v. Transdniestrian Moldovian Republic · No. 1:19-cv-06260
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 21, 2021
Background
WJ Holding Limited filed a petition asking the court to confirm an arbitration award issued by the International Chamber of Commerce against the Transdniestrian Moldovian Republic. The arbitration arose from a dispute over an agreement under which WJ Holding was to acquire a Transdniestrian company previously owned by the Republic.
On June 6, 2018, the arbitration panel found, among other things, that the Republic breached its contract with WJ Holding. An August 30, 2018 addendum ordered the Republic to pay $12,423,247 in damages. WJ Holding later moved for a default judgment or, alternatively, summary judgment confirming the award. The Republic was served with the filings but did not oppose the motion or otherwise appear in the federal case. The other named respondents were Transnistrian Republican Bank and CJSC Transnistrian Sberbank.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the default-judgment procedure was not the appropriate way to consider confirmation of an arbitration award when the nonappearing party had participated in the underlying arbitration. Because the Republic had participated in the arbitration, the court had the parties’ agreement and the award to review. The court therefore treated WJ Holding’s application as an unopposed motion for summary judgment.
The court stated that it had jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 203. It found no genuine dispute of material fact preventing summary judgment on the portions of the award at issue and found no basis in the record to conclude that the award had been vacated, modified, or corrected.
Ruling
The court granted WJ Holding’s motion for summary judgment to the extent it sought confirmation of the award’s $12,423,247 damages provision. It confirmed the award and ordered that WJ Holding recover that amount from the Transdniestrian Moldovian Republic on Count I of the petition.
The court denied WJ Holding’s request for any pre-judgment interest because the award did not provide for interest. It stated that post-judgment interest would accrue from entry of judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
The court also ordered WJ Holding to show cause, by written submission due February 5, 2021, why all claims against Transnistrian Republican Bank and CJSC Transnistrian Sberbank should not be dismissed without prejudice, and why Counts II and III against the Transdniestrian Moldovian Republic should not be dismissed without prejudice. The court said WJ Holding had not shown grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction over Counts II and III and had not pursued relief on those claims. The order states that judgment would be entered against the Republic on Count I after the outstanding counts were resolved.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.