Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Edf Intern. Sa v. Ypf Sa
Citations: 676 F. Supp. 2d 317; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72696; 2009 WL 2487310Docket: Civil Action No. 08-167-JJF
Court: District Court, D. Delaware; August 13, 2009; Federal District Court
Petitioner EDF International S.A. (EDFI) sought to amend the U.S. District Court's order dismissing its petition to confirm an arbitral award stemming from a sale and purchase agreement dated March 30, 2001. This agreement involved EDFI purchasing shares from ENDESA Internacional S.A. and Astra Compania Argentina de Petroleo S.A., which merged into YPF S.A. The arbitral tribunal awarded EDFI $40 million and YPF $11,066,150, resulting in a net award of $28,933,850 to EDFI. Despite the arbitration agreement stating the award was "not subject to appeal," both parties contested the decision in the Buenos Aires Appeals Court, which ultimately granted YPF a stay on the award pending appeal. The U.S. District Court, citing the Argentine court's suspension of the award, declined to enforce it under the New York Convention, dismissing the action due to both parties' challenges violating the arbitration agreement's terms. EDFI's motion to amend was based on concerns that dismissal could hinder its ability to enforce the award post-Argentine proceedings. The court noted that a Rule 59(e) motion may only be granted for specific reasons, including changes in law, new evidence, or to correct a legal error. A motion for reconsideration cannot simply request the court to rethink a previous decision. It is inappropriate to use such motions to introduce new facts or issues that were not previously presented. However, reargument may be warranted if the court has misunderstood a party, made a decision outside the presented issues, or committed an error in comprehension. Under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, parties must apply to confirm an arbitral award within three years of the award being made. The Second Circuit's decision in *Seetransport Wiking* indicates that if an appeal process takes longer than three years, enforcing the award could be barred. In this case, EDFI, despite not mentioning the *Seetransport* case in its motion to confirm the arbitral award, is excused for this omission. The court finds it unreasonable to expect EDFI to preemptively request a stay of the action, especially since YPF suggested staying the confirmation pending the Argentine appeal rather than outright dismissal. The court concludes that a stay is more appropriate than dismissal, which is supported by YPF's failure to identify any prejudice from a stay. Consequently, the court grants EDFI's motion to amend the dismissal order, allowing the confirmation proceedings to be stayed until the conclusion of the Argentine annulment proceedings, rather than dismissing the action entirely. An appropriate order will be issued reflecting these decisions.