Olin Holdings Limited v. State of Libya

Background

On May 25, 2018, an International Chamber of Commerce arbitration tribunal issued a final award for Olin Holdings Limited against the State of Libya. The award provided €18,225,000 in damages, $773,000 in arbitration costs, €1,069,687.70 in legal costs and expenses, and simple interest at 5% per year from the award date until payment.

Olin Holdings later asked a New York state court to confirm the award. Libya removed that proceeding to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 23, 2022, this Court confirmed the award, and on May 27, 2022, it entered an amended final judgment requiring Libya to pay $27,760,340.26 plus post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment on July 12, 2023. Libya had made no payments since the amended judgment was entered.

Motion under Section 1610(c)

Olin Holdings moved for an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c) allowing it to seek attachment or execution against Libyan property. In this context, attachment or execution refers to legal steps to use particular property to satisfy a judgment. Section 1610(c) requires the Court to determine that a reasonable period has passed after entry of the judgment before such steps may be pursued against a foreign state’s property in the United States.

The Court explained that the statute does not define a reasonable period. Courts have considered factors including payment procedures that may take several months, representations that the foreign state is taking steps to pay, and evidence that the state may move assets to avoid satisfying the judgment. Courts in the Southern District of New York had found that periods of seven and eleven months were reasonable in other cases.

Court’s Analysis

The Court held that a reasonable period had elapsed. More than fifteen months had passed since entry of the judgment, the judgment had been affirmed on appeal, and the Court identified no circumstance making it unreasonable for Libya to comply after that period.

The Court rejected Libya’s argument that enforcement should be delayed until its proceedings in France challenging the arbitration award ended. The Court stated that the Section 1610(c) inquiry focuses on the time elapsed since entry of the judgment and is not changed by the possibility that the judgment might later be vacated. If the French proceedings produced a favorable result for Libya, Libya would need to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking relief from the judgment. The possibility of that future motion did not prevent the Court from finding that a reasonable period had passed.

The Court also addressed Libya’s concern that amounts paid might not be recoverable if the judgment were later vacated. It explained that a Section 1610(c) order does not decide whether any particular asset may be attached or executed upon. Libya could raise objections concerning specific property in later proceedings.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl granted Olin Holdings’ motion and stated that the Court would sign Olin Holdings’ proposed order. The Court’s ruling allowed Olin Holdings to seek attachment or execution but did not authorize attachment or execution against any particular property. The Court had also denied as moot Olin Holdings’ separate request to register the judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas after Olin Holdings withdrew that request. The Clerk was directed to close the motion listed as ECF No. 35.