Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

GBC Oil v. Albania, Petition to Confirm Arbitral Award, July 5, 2023

5 Jul 2023
GBC Oil Company Ltd. v. Albania, Albpetrol, ICC Case No. 22676/GR
Petition to Confirm Arbitral Award
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Petition to Confirm Arbitral Award
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Print reporter
Document Summary
Petition to Confirm Arbitral Award
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture and Purpose

This document is a Petition to Confirm, Recognize, and Enforce a Foreign Arbitral Award filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Petitioner, Omni Bridgeway Limited, acting as the assignee of the original award creditor, GBC Oil Company Ltd., seeks to enforce a final arbitral award rendered by an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal. The enforcement action is brought pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention). The Petitioner seeks to enter judgment against the Respondents: the Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy of the Republic of Albania (MIE), the National Agency of Natural Resources (AKBN), and Albpetrol Sh.A.

Principal Legal Issues and Positions

The Petitioner asserts that the District Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330(a) and 1331, as well as 9 U.S.C. § 203. The Petition contends that the Respondents are not entitled to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), relying on the express waiver exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1)) contained within the underlying License Agreements, and the arbitral enforcement exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6)). Furthermore, the Petitioner maintains that it possesses proper standing to seek enforcement as the lawful assignee of the arbitral award, a transfer formally approved by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands.

Anticipating potential defenses, the Petitioner systematically addresses Article V of the New York Convention, arguing that no grounds exist for refusing recognition or enforcement. Specifically, the Petitioner notes that the arbitral tribunal already dismissed the Respondents' jurisdictional objections and allegations of illegality or corruption during the underlying arbitration, finding them unsubstantiated. The Petitioner emphasizes that under U.S. jurisprudence, such arbitral findings on the validity of the contract and the absence of corruption preclude a public policy defense against enforcement.

Relief Sought

The Petitioner requests an order confirming the ICC award in its entirety and directing the entry of judgment against the Respondents, jointly and severally. The requested judgment includes the principal damages amount of USD 12,577,852.10, arbitral costs, and accrued pre-judgment interest, totaling approximately USD 14.7 million as of the filing date, alongside a request for ongoing pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.