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, Petitioner’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion to Set Aside, Jun 29, 2018

26 Jun 2018
Process and Industrial Developments Ltd (P&ID) v. Nigeria Ministry of Petroleum Resources
View case details
Petitioner’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion to Set Aside
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Petitioner’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion to Set Aside
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
Balogun Oluwarotimi Olabode
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Seamus Ronald Andrew
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
Petitioner’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion to Set Aside
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Memorandum of Points and Authorities submitted by Petitioner Process and Industrial Developments Limited (P&ID) to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The memorandum opposes the motion filed by Respondents, the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, to set aside a clerk’s entry of default and to dismiss P&ID’s petition to confirm a US $6.59 billion arbitral award.

Principal Legal Issues and Parties' Positions

The primary legal issue concerns the sufficiency of service of process on a foreign sovereign under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3), and the standard for vacating an entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c). Nigeria argued that service was defective because P&ID allegedly failed to append the fully amended FSIA to the notice of suit, utilized a courier (FedEx) without providing a signed receipt, and addressed the package to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs rather than its specific "head."

In opposition, P&ID contends that its initial service strictly complied with the FSIA. P&ID asserts that the statutory framework only requires the inclusion of the FSIA as originally enacted, that FedEx delivery to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs satisfies the requirement for a form of mail requiring a signed receipt, and that the routing of the documents confirmed actual notice. Furthermore, P&ID argues that Nigeria failed to demonstrate "good cause" to set aside the default, characterizing Nigeria's failure to respond as a willful delay tactic consistent with a historical pattern of evading US court proceedings.

Requested Relief

P&ID requests that the Court deny Nigeria's motion in its entirety, maintain the clerk's entry of default, and proceed to confirm the arbitral award. Alternatively, P&ID notes that it has dispatched a second set of service packages to cure any alleged technical defects, arguing that the motion to dismiss should be denied as moot upon the delivery of these new packages.