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

Divine Inspiration (DIGOIL) v. DRC, Petitioner DIGOIL’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Default Judgment, October 12, 2020

12 Oct 2020
Divine Inspiration Group (PTY) Ltd v. Democratic Republic of Congo, ICC Case No. 22370/DDA
View case details
Petitioner DIGOIL’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Default Judgment
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Petitioner DIGOIL’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Default Judgment
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
Rahim Moloo, Matthew S. Rozen
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
DR Congo, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Divine Inspiration Group (PTY) Ltd.
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Petitioner DIGOIL’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Default Judgment
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

Petitioner DIGOIL filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Default Judgment before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The motion seeks to confirm a $619 million arbitral award rendered by an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal against the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), pursuant to the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Legal Issues and Party Positions

DIGOIL asserts that the District Court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), specifically invoking the waiver and arbitration exceptions. The petitioner further contends that personal jurisdiction was established following proper service of process on the DRC via the FSIA's hierarchical framework. Following the DRC's failure to appear or file a responsive pleading within the statutory sixty-day period, the Clerk of Court entered a default.

Relief Sought

The memorandum argues that DIGOIL has satisfied all procedural prerequisites for confirmation under the New York Convention. Because the DRC defaulted, it inherently failed to meet its heavy burden of establishing any of the limited defenses to enforcement enumerated in Article V of the Convention. Consequently, DIGOIL requests the entry of a default judgment confirming the arbitral award and ordering the DRC to pay the principal amount, alongside prejudgment interest at a rate of 5.03% compounded annually, and applicable post-judgment interest.