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 Response to Respondents’ Notice, October 8, 2020

8 Oct 2020
Process and Industrial Developments Ltd (P&ID) v. Nigeria Ministry of Petroleum Resources
View case details
Petitioner’s Response to Respondents’ Notice
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Petitioner’s Response to Respondents’ Notice
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, Darryl G. Stein, Christopher Cogburn
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
Nigeria, Kobre & Kim, Process and Industrial Developments Ltd.
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Petitioner’s Response to Respondents’ Notice
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a response filed by the Petitioner in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The filing addresses a Notice submitted by the Respondents, the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, regarding a recent interlocutory judgment issued by the High Court of Justice in London.

Parties' Positions and Legal Arguments

The Petitioner contends that the English High Court's decision—which granted Nigeria an extension of time to challenge the underlying 2017 arbitral award based on a prima facie case of fraud—does not constitute a setting aside of the award. The Petitioner emphasizes that the English court made no definitive findings of fraud, as no witnesses were cross-examined, and that Nigeria must still prove its allegations at trial.

Furthermore, the Petitioner argues that the Notice has no bearing on Nigeria's pending Motion to Dismiss in the U.S. proceedings. The Petitioner highlights a contradiction in Nigeria's legal posture, noting that Nigeria previously asserted the English courts lacked supervisory jurisdiction to vacate the award under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention. The Petitioner maintains that the English High Court's prior judgment enforcing the award remains undisturbed and that the U.S. District Court's jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) is unaffected.

Requested Relief

The Petitioner urges the U.S. District Court to deny Nigeria's implied request to dismiss the enforcement action without prejudice. The Petitioner characterizes Nigeria's fraud allegations as a politically motivated effort to evade payment of the Final Award and asserts its readiness to litigate the merits of those allegations before the English High Court.