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

Union Glory v. PDVSA , Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, January 31, 2024

31 Jan 2024
Union Glory Limited v. PDVSA Petroleo S.A. 
View case details
Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
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
Leonard P. Stark
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
PDVSA Petroleo, Petróleos de Venezuela, Union Glory Limited
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, recognizing and enforcing a foreign arbitral award pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. The Petitioner sought to confirm a First Partial Award and an Addendum thereto rendered against the Respondent, PDVSA Petroleo S.A.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The Court noted that the Respondent failed to appear, respond to the petition, or comply with a prior order to show cause why the petition should not be granted as unopposed. Exercising subject matter jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 203 and 28 U.S.C. § 1333, the Court evaluated the unopposed record. The Court concluded that the Petitioner had satisfied its burden for relief under 9 U.S.C. § 207 and determined that none of the enumerated defenses to enforcement under 9 U.S.C. §§ 10–11 were applicable to preclude recognition of the arbitral awards.

Decision and Operative Relief

The Court ordered that the pecuniary obligations established in the First Partial Award and its Addendum be recognized, confirmed, and entered as a judgment of the Court, carrying the same force and effect as a final judgment of a United States court of general jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court awarded the Petitioner the principal sum of US$ 3,368,320.76, alongside post-award interest accruing at a rate of 7% per annum, compounded every three months from April 14, 2023, until the date of full payment.