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

Infrastructure Services (Antin) v. Spain, Memorandum Opinon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, August 10, 2026

10 Aug 2026
Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Energia Termosolar B.V. (formerly Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Antin Energia Termosolar B.V.)​ v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31
View case details
Memorandum Opinon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Memorandum Opinon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
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
Loren L. AliKhan
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
Entities
Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À.R.L., Spain
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Memorandum Opinon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This Memorandum Opinion, issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, addresses post-judgment motions following the September 2025 confirmation of a €101 million ICSID arbitral award in favor of the Petitioners against the Kingdom of Spain. The Petitioners filed motions pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c), seeking authorization to attach and execute upon Spain’s assets, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 to register the judgment in other judicial districts. In response, Spain filed a cross-motion seeking an unbonded stay of enforcement pending appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b), or alternatively, to quash third-party subpoenas issued to the Clearing House Payments Company and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Court's Analysis on Stay of Enforcement and Subpoenas

The court first evaluated Spain’s request for an unsecured stay of enforcement. Spain argued that "unusual circumstances" warranted a departure from the standard supersedeas bond requirement, asserting that compliance would violate European Union state aid law and subject it to European Commission penalties. The court rejected this argument, noting that Spain failed to demonstrate that posting a bond—as opposed to satisfying the judgment—would trigger EU enforcement proceedings. Applying the standard from Federal Prescription Service, the court concluded that Spain’s reliance on EU law to justify non-payment evinced a reasonable likelihood of unwillingness to satisfy the judgment, thereby necessitating a full bond to protect the Petitioners' priority interests in attachable U.S. assets. Furthermore, the court denied Spain’s alternative motion to quash the third-party subpoenas, ruling that under Rule 45(d), jurisdiction to quash or modify lies exclusively with the district where compliance is required—in this instance, the Southern District of New York.

Decision on Attachment and Judgment Registration

Turning to the Petitioners' affirmative requests, the court granted the motion for an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c). The court determined that the ten months elapsed since the entry of judgment comfortably satisfied the FSIA’s "reasonable period of time" requirement, rejecting Spain's contention that pending appellate and certiorari proceedings rendered the request premature. Finally, the court found "good cause" under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 to permit the registration of the judgment in other judicial districts. Relying on declarations indicating an absence of executable assets in the District of Columbia and the likely presence of substantial attachable assets in New York, the court authorized the Petitioners to register the judgment outside the issuing district.