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

P&ID v. Nigeria, Motion for Setting of Briefing Schedule, September 5, 2018

5 Sep 2018
Process and Industrial Developments Ltd (P&ID) v. Nigeria Ministry of Petroleum Resources
View case details
Motion for Setting of Briefing Schedule
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Motion for Setting of Briefing Schedule
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
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Michael S. Kim, Josef M. Klazen
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
Entities
Process and Industrial Developments Ltd., Nigeria, Kobre & Kim
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Motion for Setting of Briefing Schedule
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

In the context of enforcement proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Petitioner Process and Industrial Developments Limited (P&ID) filed a Motion for Setting of Briefing Schedule regarding its Petition to Confirm a US $6.5 billion arbitral award rendered against the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Principal Legal Issues and Parties' Positions

The principal procedural issue concerns the sequencing of pleadings in a summary enforcement proceeding under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the New York Convention. Following Nigeria’s filing of a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional immunity grounds under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), Nigeria maintained that its obligation to respond to the merits of the confirmation petition was suspended pending the resolution of its jurisdictional challenge.

P&ID contends that an action to confirm an arbitral award is a summary proceeding that precludes notice pleading and piecemeal litigation. Relying on the FAA and relevant district court precedents, P&ID argues that Nigeria was required to submit all defenses—both jurisdictional and merits-based—in a single consolidated opposition. P&ID characterizes Nigeria's bifurcated approach as an improper delay tactic designed to forestall execution on the Final Award, noting that courts routinely decide FSIA jurisdiction and New York Convention defenses concurrently.

Relief Requested

P&ID requests that the Court exercise its case management discretion to set a prompt deadline for Nigeria’s substantive response to the Petition. Furthermore, P&ID seeks an order aligning the briefing schedules so that the Court may adjudicate both the jurisdictional objections and the merits of the enforcement action in a single, comprehensive ruling.