You're viewing Docket Item 01207592907 from the case Belize Social Development Ltd v. Government of Belize. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 1 of 231


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT



BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT,
LIMITED,

Appellee,



v.

GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:





No. 14-7002

Consolidated with Nos. 14-7003
and 14-7018

APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL

Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 8 and Local Rule 8, appellant Government of

Belize (“GOB”) hereby moves this Court for an emergency stay of all proceedings

in the District Court, including but not limited to a stay of discovery in aid

execution and of enforcement of the judgment below, pending resolution of GOB’s

consolidated appeals to this Court.

Appellee Belize Social Development Limited (“BSDL”) commenced this

action in the District Court to confirm a purported foreign arbitration award against

GOB. GOB brought a motion to dismiss based, inter alia, on foreign sovereign

immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq.

(“FSIA”). After the District Court denied the motion, GOB filed an interlocutory

appeal in this Court, which divested the District Court of jurisdiction. The District

Court nevertheless entered an order awarding BSDL the sum of $22,484,961.94



USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 2 of 231


and a judgment in favor of BSDL. BSDL then served GOB with extensive post-

judgment discovery concerning GOB’s assets. On April 29, 2014, the District

Court denied GOB’s motion to stay in a minute order. Absent a stay, the discovery

responses will be due on May 19, 2014.

The FSIA protects foreign states, like GOB, from the burdens of litigation

until a final decision is made on the issue of sovereign immunity. GOB requests

that this Court stay all proceedings below until final resolution of the appeal.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This matter involves an illegal and ultra vires Accommodation Agreement

secretly entered into in 2005 between a former Belizean Prime Minister and a

Belizean telecommunications company, Belize Telemedia Ltd. (“BTL”). The

former Prime Minister purportedly agreed to provide BTL with preferential tax

treatments, exempt BTL from import duties, and guarantee BTL a minimum rate of

return on investments. Tab 2 at 5-6; Tab 5 at 2.

At the time the Accommodation Agreement was executed, BTL was

controlled by Lord Michael Ashcroft, a British lord with substantial political

influence in Belize. Tab 2 at 4-5; Tab 5 at 2, n.2. To avoid the jurisdiction of

Belizean courts and to force any disputes to be litigated in England, a venue

favorable to Lord Ashcroft, BTL inserted a clause in the Accommodation

-2-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 3 of 231


Agreement calling for arbitration under the rules of the London Court of

International Arbitration (“LCIA”). Tab 5 at 3.

In 2008, Belize elected a new Prime Minister, who made the

Accommodation Agreement public and noted its invalidity under the Belizean

Constitution and Belizean law. Tab 5 at 2; Tab 2 at 6. The Accommodation

Agreement was void ab initio because the former Prime Minister lacked actual

authority to exempt a private company from applicable tax and duties or otherwise

to enter into to the Accommodation Agreement. Tab 3 at ¶¶ 10-18.

Three months after the new Prime Minister exposed the Accommodation

Agreement, BTL, claiming breaches of the agreement, commenced an LCIA

arbitration proceeding in London. Tab 2 at 8; Tab 5 at 3. Because the

Accommodation Agreement is void ab initio, GOB did not participate in the

arbitration. Id. The LCIA ultimately awarded BTL substantial damages. Id. In a

further effort to protect the award from Belizean courts, BTL incorporated appellee

BSDL in the British Virgin Islands two days after the LCIA rendered the award,

and apparently assigned its arbitration award to BSDL. Tab 5 at 4. (The District

Court refused to allow discovery on the assignment).

On April 6, 2009 (seven months before BSDL filed this action), GOB filed

suit against BSDL in Belize seeking a judicial declaration that the Accommodation

Agreement was illegal and that the award was unenforceable. Tab 5 at 4. The

-3-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 4 of 231


Belizean Supreme Court issued an injunction against BSDL proceeding with

enforcement of the award until after adjudication of that action. Id. The Belizean

litigation is pending. Id.

The District Court, in a minute order, initially stayed this action pending the

outcome of the litigation in Belize. Tab 1 (Oct. 18, 2010, Minute Order). A split

panel of this Court remanded the case on the grounds that the stay was indefinite in

Belize Soc. Devel. Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize, 668 F.3d 724 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“BSDL”).

On December 11, 2013, the District Court entered an order denying GOB’s

motion to dismiss and confirming the award. Tab 5. On January 8, 2014, GOB

filed a notice of appeal from that Order. Tab 7. Despite the interlocutory appeal

divesting the District Court of jurisdiction, the District Court entered an Order

awarding $22,484,961.94 to BSDL on January 9, 2014. Tab 8; Tab 1. The Clerk

entered Judgment on February 4, 2014. Tab 1. GOB has also appealed from the

second order and from the judgment. Tab 1.

On March 13, 2014, BSDL served 22 interrogatories and 21 document

requests on GOB pertaining to the location and identity of GOB’s assets. Tabs 9,

10. On April 3, 2014, GOB filed a motion with the District Court to stay all

proceedings, including discovery. Tab 11. The parties agreed to toll the deadline

to respond to the discovery until 18 days after the District Court ruled on the

-4-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 5 of 231


motion. On April 29, 2014, the Court denied the motion by minute order. Tab 12.

The deadline for GOB to respond to the discovery is currently May 19, 2014.

ARGUMENT

In this Circuit, a motion for stay involves consideration of four factors:

(1) Has the petitioner made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail
on the merits of its appeal? . . . (2) Has the petitioner shown that
without such relief, it will be irreparably injured? . . . (3) Would the
issuance of a stay substantially harm other parties interested in the
proceedings? . . . (4) Where lies the public interest?

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d

841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (quoting Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. Federal

Power Comm’n, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958)). All four factors strongly

militate in favor of a stay in this action.

A. GOB is Likely to Succeed on Appeal.

“Likelihood of success” does not require a “mathematical possibility” of

“ultimate success by the movant.” Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d at 843. It is sufficient

to establish that “a serious legal question is presented, when little if any harm will

befall other interested persons or the public and when denial of the order would

inflict irreparable injury on the movant.” Id. at 844 (emphasis added). GOB raises

several serious legal questions in its appeal.

-5-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 6 of 231


1. GOB’s Interlocutory Appeal Divested the District Court of

Jurisdiction to Enter Judgment and Conduct Discovery.

GOB’s appeal from the December 11, 2013, Order denying its motion to

dismiss and confirming the award is interlocutory. When filed, the District Court

had not yet issued its order determining the amount of the judgment or entering a

final judgment. See La Reunion Aerienne v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya, 533 F.3d 837, 842-843 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Further, an order denying a

motion to dismiss on FSIA grounds is immediately appealable under the collateral

order doctrine. See Kirkham v. Societe Air France, 429 F.3d 288, 291 (D.C. Cir.

2005); El–Hadad v. United Arab Emirates, 216 F.3d 29, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 9

U.S.C. § 16(D) of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) also permits an

interlocutory appeal from an order “confirming . . . an award.” See 14 Penn Plaza

LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247, 254 (2009); Janiga v. Questar Capital Corp., 615 F.3d

735, 740 (7th Cir. 2010).

GOB’s interlocutory appeal divested the District Court of jurisdiction, as the

FSIA protects foreign states like GOB from the burdens attendant to litigation. See

Princz v. Fed. Rep. of Germany, 998 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam);

Jungquist v. Sheikh Sultan Bin Khalifa Al Nahyan, 115 F.3d 1020, 1026 (D.C. Cir.

1997); Ungar v. Palestine Liberation Org., 402 F.3d 274, 293 (1st Cir. 2005).

An appeal under FAA § 16 also divests a district court of jurisdiction. See

Bradford–Scott Data Corp. v. Physician Computer Network, Inc., 128 F.3d 504,

-6-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 7 of 231


505 (7th Cir.1997) (“[c]ontinuation of proceedings in the district court largely

[would] defeat[] the point of the appeal and creates a risk of inconsistent handling

of the case by two tribunals”); McCauley v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 413

F.3d 1158, 1162–63 (10th Cir. 2005). Discovery may not proceed in the District

Court after filing of an interlocutory appeal. Bradford-Scott, 128 F.3d at 506.

Because GOB filed an interlocutory appeal on January 8, 2014, the District

Court was without jurisdiction to enter its order of January 9, 2014, awarding

BSDL $22,484,961.94, and to enter judgment on February 4, 2014. See Garcia v.

Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 818 F.2d 713, 721 (10th Cir. 1987) (once a

district court is divested of jurisdiction, “[a]ny subsequent action by it is null and

void.”); DSMC Inc. v. Convera Corp., 2002 WL 31741498 at *1 (D.C. Cir. 2002)

(a district court may not proceed following appeal). A determination of damages is

precisely the type of action that is rendered void by a previously-filed interlocutory

appeal. Garcia, 818 F.2d at 721.

BSDL’s broad post-judgment discovery requests also are incompatible with

the FSIA. See Rubin v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 637 F.3d 783, 799 (7th Cir. 2011)

(“The general-asset discovery order issued in this case is incompatible with the

FSIA.”).

The District Court’s post-appeal order and entry of judgment are invalid as a

matter of law. Moreover, BSDL cannot conduct “post-judgment” discovery during

-7-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 8 of 231


the pendency of the appeal. This establishes both a likelihood that GOB will

prevail on the merits, and also a compelling reason to stay discovery and execution

of the (invalid) judgment pending the outcome of the appeal.

2. This Appeal Seeks Review of Whether the FSIA’s Arbitration
Exception Applies When the Underlying Agreement is Void Ab
Initio and the Foreign State Is Not a Party to the Convention.

The District Court incorrectly concluded that it was bound by this Court’s

opinion in BSDL to confirm the arbitration award without even considering

whether the Accommodation Agreement (and its arbitration provision) was void ab

initio, and despite the fact that a non-signatory to the New York Convention cannot

be bound by the provisions of that Convention. This is to be reviewed de novo.

A foreign state is “presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of United

States courts.” Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 355 (1989). The District

Court, however, concluded that the FSIA’s “arbitration exception,” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1605(a)(6)(B), applied because the LCIA issued its award in England, which is a

party to the New York Convention; the District Court, citing BSDL, concluded that

“Belize’s status under the convention is irrelevant.” Tab 5 at 8. The analysis is

flawed for several reasons.

First, the arbitration exception cannot be imputed to GOB if the former

Prime Minister lacked actual authority to execute and bind GOB to the

Accommodation Agreement. See Phaneuf v. Indonesia, 106 F.3d 302, 308 (9th

-8-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 9 of 231


Cir. 1997) (actual authority required to impute act to foreign state for purposes of

exceptions under the FSIA); Velasco v. Gov’t of Indonesia, 370 F.3d 392, 400-402

(4th Cir. 2004) (same). “If the foreign state has not empowered its agent to act, the

agent’s unauthorized act cannot be attributed to the foreign state. . ..’” Phaneuf,

106 F.3d at 308. Although this Circuit has not ruled on whether an FSIA

exception may be applied based on an unauthorized act of a foreign government

official, Judge Howell recently followed Phaneuf in TJGEM LLC v. Rep. of

Ghana, -- F. Supp.2d --, 2013 WL 6857988 at **4-7 (D.D.C. 2013). Under

Phaneuf, for purposes of application of the FSIA, the LCIA arbitration cannot be

considered to have been an act by GOB (particularly given that GOB refused to

participate in the arbitration), and therefore that arbitration cannot be a basis to

apply the arbitration exception.

Second, the FSIA’s arbitration exception cannot be applied, based on the

New York Convention, against a foreign sovereign, such as Belize, that has not

ratified the Convention. If Belize were a party to the Convention or had

participated in the LCIA arbitration, then it could be said that Belize may have

anticipated being sued in other Convention states. However, Belize is not a party

to the Convention and did not participate in the LCIA arbitration. See Creighton

Ltd. v. Gov’t of the State of Qatar, 181 F.3d 118, 123 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“when a

country becomes a signatory to the Convention, by the very provisions of the

-9-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 10 of 231



Convention, the signatory state must have contemplated enforcement actions in

other signatory states.”) (citation omitted). Indeed, Article XII of the Convention

requires ratification before it “enters into force” as to a given state; thus, U.S.

courts or the Congress cannot “impute” the Convention to non-signatories. This

Circuit has held that “a treaty … binds only those countries that have ratified it.”

Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F.3d 11, 35-36 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (U.S. not bound by

Rome Statute because it has not ratified it), vacated on other grounds, 527

Fed.Appx. 7 (D.C. Cir. 2013); Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 932

F.2d 1475, 1489 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“United States has not ratified the Hague or

Montreal Protocols and they are not binding on us …”); Owner-Operator

Independent Drivers Ass’n, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 724 F.3d 230, 232

(D.D.C. 2013); Haver v. Yaker, 75 U.S. (9 Wall.) 32, 35, 19 L.Ed. 571 (1869)

(U.S. is bound by treaty only after “Senate, in whom rests the authority to ratify it,

agree[s] to it”); Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233, 256 (2d Cir. 2003)

(“state only becomes bound by -- that is, becomes a party to -- a treaty when it

ratifies the treaty.”); Flores-Nova v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 652 F.3d 488, 494 n. 6

(3d Cir. 2011) (“Unratified treaties are not binding on the United States and do not

have the force of law.”); U.S. v. Best, 304 F.3d 308, 215 (3d Cir. 2002); Garza v.

Lappin, 253 F.3d 918, 925 (7th Cir. 2001). This same rule applied to the U.S.

government must be applied to a friendly foreign state, like Belize. “In the field of

-10-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 11 of 231



international law, where no single sovereign reigns supreme, the Golden Rule takes

on added poignancy.” de Sanchez v. Banco Central De Nicaragua, 770 F.2d 1385,

1398 (5th Cir. 1985).

Third, even if Belize had agreed to arbitrate in a country, such as England,

that was a signatory to the New York Convention, any resulting arbitration award

could only be enforced in the courts of the United States if it “waived its immunity

. . . by implication.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1). This Court, however, follows “the

‘virtually unanimous’ precedents construing the implied waiver provision

narrowly.” Creighton Ltd. v. Gov’t of the State of Qatar, 181 F.3d at 122 (quoting

Shapiro v. Rep. of Bolivia, 930 F.2d 1013, 1017 (2d Cir. 1991)). For the “implied

waiver” exception to apply, “the foreign state [must] have intended to waive its

sovereign immunity. Id. “[C]ourts rarely find that a nation has waived its

sovereign immunity . . . without strong evidence that this is what the foreign state

intended.” Foremost–McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 905 F.2d 438, 444

(D.C. Cir. 1990). There is no evidence that GOB intended to waive its sovereign

immunity in the U.S.1 As this Court has held, an agreement to arbitrate in a



Despite its name, the LCIA is not a “court” but an arbitration center based in

1
London. Under the Accommodation Agreement, GOB purportedly agreed to
arbitrate under LCIA rules. Under analogous circumstances, this Court has held
that an agreement to arbitrate before the International Center for Settlement of
Investment Disputes cannot be deemed an implicit waiver of sovereign immunity
in the United States, although such arbitrations normally take place in Washington

-11-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 12 of 231



country that is a signatory to the New York Convention is insufficient to

demonstrate an intent to waive sovereign immunity. Id. at 123 (“Qatar not having

signed the Convention, we do not think that its agreement to arbitrate in a signatory

country, without more, demonstrated the requisite intent to waive it sovereign

immunity in the United States.”); see also First Inv. Corp. v. Fujian Mawei

Shipbuilding, Ltd., 703 F.3d 742, 752 n.6 (5th Cir. 2013) (“We also reject any

argument that the Fujian Entities were on notice that they might be haled into court

in the United States, having willingly submitted to arbitration in the United

Kingdom. The D.C. Circuit considered, and rejected, a similar argument in

Creighton …”).

Thus, the District Court’s application of the arbitration exception on the

basis of an unratified treaty is contrary to settled law, because such a waiver of

immunity by Belize would necessarily be deemed to have been by implication, yet

“most courts have refused to find an implicit waiver of immunity to suit in

American courts from a contract clause providing for arbitration in a country other

than the United States.” Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 761 F.2d

370, 377 (7th Cir. 1985).



D.C., since the agreement did not foresee a role for U.S. courts. Maritime Int’l
Nominees Establishment v. Rep. of Guinea, 693 F.2d 1094, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
Here, nothing in the Accommodation Agreement foresees a role for U.S. courts.

-12-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 13 of 231



The District Court ignored this precedent, and instead relied on footnote 3 in

BSDL for the proposition that “[t]he LCIA’s award in this case is clearly governed

by the New York Convention because both England (where the arbitration took

place) and the United States are parties to the Convention.” Tab 5 at 8. Relying on

the same footnote, the District Court added that “Belize’s status under the

convention is irrelevant.” Id.

The District Court misread BSDL. Footnote 3 of BSDL held that Belize’s

status under the New York Convention was irrelevant to the issue of whether this

action should have been stayed pending resolution of litigation in Belize, because

Belizean courts lacked “primary jurisdiction” under the Convention; BSDL did not

address the questions of whether the arbitration exception to the FSIA applied to an

arbitration conducted pursuant to an agreement that is void ab initio or with respect

to a foreign state that is not a party to the New York Convention.

The District Court also cited Creighton Ltd. for the proposition that “[i]f the

place of the award is ‘in the territory of a party to the Convention, all other

Convention states are required to recognize and enforce the award, regardless of

the citizenship or domicile of the parties to the arbitration.’” BSDL, 668 F.3d at

731. Creighton Ltd. does not hold, as BSDL suggested, that an arbitration award

against a non-signatory to the New York Convention could be enforced under the

Convention as long as arbitration itself took place in a signatory country. In BSDL,

-13-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 14 of 231



unlike here, it was undisputed that the Convention applied. Creighton Ltd., 181

F.3d at 121. Moreover, the quoted language is from the Restatement, but omits the

next two sentences that point out that the Restatement rule does not necessarily

apply to foreign states. In short, BSDL did not address the questions raised here.

3. This Appeal Seeks Review of a Federal Circuit Decision on Forum

Non Conveniens That Has Created A Circuit Split.

This appeal raises a serious question regarding the doctrine of forum non

conveniens (“FNC”). The FNC doctrine applies if there is an adequate alternative

forum and the private and public factors favor dismissal. Agudas Chasidei Chabad

of U.S. v. Russian Fed., 528 F.3d 934, 950 (D.C. Cir. 2008). GOB moved to

dismiss on FNC grounds, arguing that Belize is an adequate alternative forum and

the private and public interest favor dismissal. BSDL, 2013 WL 6502416 at *5.

The District Court denied the motion, holding that “[u]nfortunately for

GOB, there is no adequate alternative forum for this case because ‘only a court of

the United States (or one of them) may attach commercial property of a foreign

nation located in the United States.’” Tab 5 at 10 (citing TMR Energy Ltd. v. State

Prop. Fund of Ukraine, 411 F.3d 296, 303 (D.C. Cir. 2005)).

TMR Energy is at odds with decisions from the Second Circuit that have

dismissed confirmation actions under the New York Convention on FNC grounds.

See Figueiredo Ferraz E. Engenieria de Projecto Ltda. v. Republic of Peru, 665

F.3d 384, 389-394 (2d Cir. 2011); see also, generally, In re Arbitration Between

-14-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 15 of 231



Monegasque de Reassurances S.A.M. v. Nak Naftogaz of Ukraine, 311 F.3d 488

(2d Cir. 2002). The Second Circuit has held, disagreeing with TMR Energy, that

“It is no doubt true that only a United States court may attach a defendant’s
particular assets located here, but that circumstance cannot render a foreign
forum inadequate. If it could, every suit having the ultimate objective of
executing upon assets located in this country could never be dismissed
because of FNC.”


Figueiredo Ferraz, 665 F.3d at 390. The District Court recognized the circuit split,

but held that TMR Energy “is the controlling law in our Circuit.” Tab 5 at 11 and

n. 9. GOB respectfully submits that the Second Circuit’s reasoning is better. TMR

Energy essentially eviscerates the FNC doctrine, because plaintiffs will always

seek to enforce a judgment against assets in the U.S. Further, TMR Energy is at

odds with Supreme Court precedent, which imposes no such limitation. See Piper

Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981). Had the District Court not been

bound by TMR Energy, the result would have been different, because the FNC

factors favor dismissal. The parties to the Accommodation Agreement and award

(BTL and GOB) are Belizean, and the Belizean courts have a greater interest in

determining whether a former Prime Minister executed secret agreements allowing

unlawful tax and duty exemptions.

4. The District Court Erred In Refusing to Consider a CCJ Decision
that Creates a Conflict Warranting Dismissal on Comity Grounds.

The District Court denied GOB’s motion to dismiss on international comity

grounds stating that the BSDL “essentially forecloses these arguments, as the Court

-15-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 16 of 231



held that litigation in Belize ‘has no preclusive effect on the district court’s

disposition of the petition to enforce.’” Tab 5 at 11 (citing BSDL, 668 F.3d at

730). Whether the pending action in Belize has a “preclusive” effect is an entirely

different issue from whether an action can be dismissed based on the doctrine of

comity. Comity is a discretionary doctrine. Again, the District Court was under

the incorrect impression that the panel in BSDL had “instructed me to proceed with

enforcement anyway” and “regardless of whether our Circuit Court’s holding has

the potential for straining relations between the United States and Belize … I am,

in the final analysis, bound by that decision.” Id.

The District Court’s further conclusion that “I am not convinced that there is

a ‘true conflict’ between U.S. and Belizean law,” Tab 5 at 12 and n. 10, fails to

appreciate the conflict. The Caribbean Court of Justice (“CCJ”), the highest

appellate body in Belize, issued a decision that accommodation agreements were

illegal under the Belizean Constitution and statutes and, on that basis, refused to

enforce an LCIA arbitration award against GOB. Tab 4. The District Court

declined stating that the CCJ’s “ruling would have no impact on my analysis”

given its misreading of the BSDL “relevance” holding. Tab 5 at 27, n. 31. Even if

the District Court was not bound by the CCJ determination that the award was

unenforceable, comity required deference to the CCJ holding that accommodation

agreements are illegal under Belizean law.

-16-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 17 of 231



The District Court stated that “GOB ignores that ‘the central precept of

comity teaches that, when possible, the decisions of foreign tribunals should be

given effect in domestic courts, since recognition fosters international cooperation

and encourages reciprocity, thereby promoting predictability and stability.’ Laker

Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909, 937 (D.C. Cir.

1984).” Tab 5 at 12, n. 11. The District Court should have heeded its own advice

and dismissed in deference to the CCJ decision. Instead, the District Court has

confirmed an award based on a corrupt and illegal agreement.

5. On the Merits, the District Court Erred by Failing to Consider

Whether the Accommodation Agreement, Containing the
Arbitration Clause, Was Void Ab Initio.

The District Court did not address the merits of GOB’s argument that the

Accommodation Agreement was void ab initio under Belizean law, meaning that

the award could not be confirmed against GOB. Instead, the District Court held

that, even if a contract itself is void, an arbitration clause within that contract

remains enforceable “[a]bsent a direct challenge to the arbitration clause itself,”

Tab 5 at 19, and that whether the Accommodation Agreement was void ab initio

was a determination for the LCIA, not the District Court, to make.

The District Court’s reasoning is contrary to well-established law. See

Snowden v. Checkpoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 637 (4th Cir. 2002) (“The

severability doctrine has been held not to apply when the party seeking to avoid

-17-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 18 of 231



arbitration contends that it never assented in the first place to the contract

containing the arbitration provision.”); China Minmetals Import and Export Co.,

Ltd. v. Chi Mei Corp., 334 F.3d 274, 289 (3d Cir. 2003) (“a party that opposes

enforcement of a foreign arbitration award under the [New York] Convention on

the grounds that the alleged agreement containing the arbitration clause on which

the arbitration panel rested its jurisdiction was void ab initio is entitled to present

evidence of such invalidity to the district court, which must make an independent

determination of the agreement’s validity and therefore of the arbitrability of the

dispute, at least in the absence of a waiver precluding the defense.”); BG Group

PLC v. Rep. of Argentina, 134 S.Ct. 1198, 1206-07 (2014)(courts, not arbitrators,

to decide validity of arbitration agreements); First Options of Chicago, Inc. v.

Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (whether non-signatory of an agreement containing

an arbitration provision is subject to arbitration is a question for courts, not

arbitrator). By contrast, Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 540 U.S. 440

(2006), upon which the District Court based its analysis, is inapposite, because

“[i]n Buckeye, the formation of the parties’ arbitration agreement was not at issue.”

Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 130 S.Ct. 2847,

2858 (2010).

An invalid agreement cannot be enforced against a foreign state that is not a

party to the Convention merely because the award was made in the territory of a

-18-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 19 of 231



party to the Convention. Otherwise, corrupt foreign officials could ensure that

their illegal agreements receive unquestioning validation by U.S. courts simply by

inserting clauses calling for arbitration in signatory states.2/

B. Absent a Stay, GOB Will Suffer Irreparable Harm.

GOB would be irreparably harmed if forced to respond to BSDL’s “post

judgment discovery,” which seeks detailed and vast information concerning

Belize’s assets in the U.S. As cited above, the FSIA is intended to protect foreign

states like GOB from the burdens attendant to litigation. In particular, “general-

asset discovery … is incompatible with the FSIA.” Rubin, 637 F.3d at 799.

It is also unlikely that GOB, if paid the $22 million Judgment, would be able

to recover those monies back from BSDL if GOB prevailed on appeal. BSDL is a

special purpose entity incorporated in the British Virgin Islands two days after

LCIA issued the award solely for the purpose of being the assignee of the award.

Those funds would disappear after they are collected leaving BSDL a mere shell.

C. A Stay Would Not Harm Any Other Party.

Neither BSDL nor any other party would be harmed by a stay. Any “delay”

in payment to BSDL can be accommodated through post-judgment interest.


It is particularly important for a court to adjudicate claims that an underlying

2
contract was void ab initio for lack of authority in the case of a foreign state,
because a government cannot be bound when the government official lacked actual
authority. See Fed. Crop. Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384 (1947); U.S. v.
Walcott, 972 F.2d 323, 327 (11th Cir. 1992).


-19-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 20 of 231



D.

The Public Interest Supports Issuance of a Stay.

Forcing GOB to pay $22 million based on a secret agreement that violates

Belizean laws – and a Judgment entered without consideration of the validity of

that agreement – would be offensive to recognized notions of international comity

and relations among nations. See Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v.

U.S. Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 544 (1987) (comity

refers to the “spirit of cooperation in which a domestic tribunal approaches the

resolution of cases touching the laws and interests of other sovereign states.”);

Cunard Steamship Co. v. Salen Reefer Servs. AB, 773 F.2d 452 (2d Cir. 1985)

(U.S. courts ordinarily defer to proceedings taking place in foreign countries).

Comity militates strongly against a U.S. court compelling a foreign sovereign state

to pay $22 million pursuant to an agreement that is repugnant to Belize’s own

laws, as held by the CCJ, before the validity of the judgment based on that illegal

agreement and corresponding illegitimate arbitration award can be ascertained by

this Court.

CONCLUSION

Because all four of the Virginia Petroleum Jobbers factors weigh in favor of

a stay, this Court should stay all proceedings in the District Court, including but

not limited to discovery and attempts to execute the void judgment entered below.

-20-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 21 of 231





DATE: May 9, 2014



Respectfully submitted,







/s/ Creighton R. Magid
Creighton R. Magid (#49713)
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 750
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 442-3555
Fax: (202) 442-3199
[email protected]

Juan C. Basombrio
(pro hac vice application to be filed)
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Telephone: (714) 800-1405
Fax: (714) 800-1499
[email protected]

Attorneys for Appellant Government of
Belize

-21-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 22 of 231



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of May, 2014, I electronically

filed the foregoing APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL with the Clerk of the Court for the United

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit using the CM/ECF

system, which automatically served all counsel in this case.






/s/ Creighton R. Magid
Creighton R. Magid





-22-

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 23 of 231



TAB 1



District of Columbia live database

Page 1 of 12

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 24 of 231

APPEAL,CLOSED,STAYED,TYPE-E

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia (Washington, DC)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09-cv-02170-RJL

Date Filed: 11/17/2009
Date Terminated: 01/16/2014
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED v.
GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE
Assigned to: Judge Richard J. Leon
Case in other court: 10-07167
14-07002
14-07003
14-07018

Cause: 09:0202 Award under Convention on Foreign Arbitral
Awards
Petitioner
BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
LIMITED

represented by Joseph S. Hall

KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD,
EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC
1615 M Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 326-7983
Fax: (202) 328-7999
Email: [email protected]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth Chris Todd
KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD,
EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC
1615 M Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 326-7900
Fax: (202) 326-7999
Email: [email protected]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin Graham Koehler
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
1501 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-1401
(202) 736-8359
Fax: (202) 736-8711
Email: [email protected]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638891438305926-L_1_0-1

5/9/2014

District of Columbia live database

Page 2 of 12

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 25 of 231

Dana C. MacGrath
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
(212) 839-7319
Fax: (212) 839-5599
Email: [email protected]
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Respondent
GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE

Louis B. Kimmelman
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
(212) 839-5300
Fax: (212) 839-5599
Email: [email protected]
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Creighton R. Magid

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
1801 K Street NW
Suite 750
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 442-3555
Fax: (202) 442-3199
Email: [email protected]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jay Christopher Johnson
VENABLE LLP
575 7th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 344-4698
Fax: (202) 344-8300
Email: [email protected]
TERMINATED: 01/31/2013

Juan C. Basombrio
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
600 Anton Boulevard
Suite 2000
Costa Mesa, CA 92646
714-800-1400
Fax: 714-800-1499
Email: [email protected]
PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638891438305926-L_1_0-1

5/9/2014

District of Columbia live database

Page 3 of 12

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 26 of 231

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Koeppl
DORSEY & WHITNEY, L.L.P.
1801 K Street, NW
Suite 750
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 442-3510
Email: [email protected]
TERMINATED: 07/28/2010

Date Filed
11/17/2009

11/17/2009

11/17/2009

11/17/2009

11/17/2009

11/20/2009

11/23/2009

# Docket Text
1 PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD against GOVERNMENT OF
BELIZE ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 4616025534.) filed by BELIZE SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2
Declaration of Louis B. Kimmelman, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6
Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, #
12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Declaration Stephen
J. Ruzika, # 17 Exhibit A, # 18 Exhibit B, # 19 Exhibit C, # 20 Exhibit D, # 21 Notice
of Filing of Petition to Confirm Foreign Arbitration Award and to Enter Judgment, #
22 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 11/18/2009)

2 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial

Interests NONE by BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED. (jf, ) (Entered:
11/18/2009)

3 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Dana C. MacGrath,

:Firm- Allen & Overy LLP, :Address- 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New
York 10020. Phone No. - 212-610-6300. Fax No. - 212-610-6399 by BELIZE SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed
Order)(jf, ) (Entered: 11/18/2009)

4 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Louis B. Kimmelman,
:Firm- Allen & Overy LLP, :Address- 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New
York 10020. Phone No. - 212-610-6300. Fax No. - 212-610-6399 by BELIZE SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed
Order)(jf, ) (Entered: 11/18/2009)

5 REQUEST from Petitioner for the Clerk to effect service of one copy of the summons,

complaint, and notice of suit, together with a translation of each into the official
language of the foreign state, by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the head of
the ministry of foreign affairs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1608(a)(3). (Attachments: # 1
Notice of Suit) (jf, ) (Entered: 11/18/2009)

7 CERTIFICATE OF CLERK of mailing one copy of the summons, complaint, and
notice of suit, together with a translation of each into the official language of the
foreign state on Defendant, by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the head of
the ministry of foreign affairs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1608(a)(3). (Attachments: # 1
Receipt of Mailing) (jf, ) (Main Document 7 replaced on 11/30/2009) (jf, ). (Entered:
11/27/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 3 Motion of LOUIS B. KIMMELMAN for Leave to
Appear Pro Hac Vice. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Signed

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638891438305926-L_1_0-1

5/9/2014

District of Columbia live database

Page 4 of 12

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 27 of 231

by Judge Richard J. Leon on 11/23/09. (lcrjl3) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 4 Motion of DANA C. MACGRATH for Leave to Appear
Pro Hac Vice. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Signed by Judge
Richard J. Leon on 11/23/09. (lcrjl3) (Entered: 11/23/2009)

11/23/2009

11/25/2009

12/17/2009

12/28/2009

01/07/2010

01/07/2010

01/22/2010

01/22/2010

01/22/2010

01/25/2010

03/29/2010

03/29/2010

6 STANDING ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 11/25/09. (lcrjl3) (Entered:

11/25/2009)

8 MOTION for Order to Resend by BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Hall, Joseph)
(Entered: 12/17/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 8 Motion to Resend. It is hereby ORDERED that the
motion is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 12/28/09. (lcrjl3) (Entered:
12/28/2009)

9 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to

GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE served on 12/2/2009, answer due 2/1/2010. (jf, )
(Entered: 01/07/2010)

10 Summons Returned Unexecuted as to Attorney General for the GOVERNMENT OF

BELIZE. (jf, ) . (Entered: 01/07/2010)

11 NOTICE of Appearance by Timothy J. Koeppl on behalf of GOVERNMENT OF

BELIZE (Koeppl, Timothy) (Entered: 01/22/2010)

12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Juan C. Basombrio,
:Firm- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, :Address- 38 Technology Drive, Suite 100, Irvine,
California 92618-5310. Phone No. - 949-932-3650. Fax No. - 949-932-3601 by
GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Koeppl,
Timothy) (Entered: 01/22/2010)

13 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Petition by

GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Koeppl,
Timothy) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 12 Motion of JUAN C. BASOMBRIO for Leave to
Appear Pro Hac Vice. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Signed
by Judge Richard J. Leon on 1/25/10. (lcrjl3) (Entered: 01/25/2010)

14 NOTICE of Rule 44.1 Intent to Rely on Foreign Law by GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE

(Koeppl, Timothy) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

15 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or Stay by GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE

(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration Claire L. Jones, # 3
Declaration Michael C. Young - Part A, # 4 Declaration Michael C. Young - Part B, #
5 Declaration Michael C. Young - Part C, # 6 Declaration Michael C. Young - Part D,
# 7 Declaration Michael C. Young - Part E, # 8 Declaration Micahel C. Young - Part F,
# 9 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part A, # 10 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part B, #
11 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part C, # 12 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part D, #
13 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part E, # 14 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part F, # 15
Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part G, # 16 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part H, # 17
Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part I, # 18 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part J, # 19
Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part K, # 20 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part L, # 21
Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part M, # 22 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part N, # 23
Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part O, # 24 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part P, # 25

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638891438305926-L_1_0-1

5/9/2014

District of Columbia live database

Page 5 of 12

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 28 of 231

Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part A, # 26 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part B,
# 27 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part C, # 28 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio -
Part D, # 29 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part E, # 30 Declaration Juan C.
Basombrio - Part F, # 31 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part G, # 32 Declaration
Juan C. Basombrio - Part H, # 33 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part I, # 34
Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part J, # 35 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part K,
# 36 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part L, # 37 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio -
Part M, # 38 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part N, # 39 Declaration Juan C.
Basombrio - Part O, # 40 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part P)(Koeppl, Timothy).
Added MOTION to Stay on 3/30/2010 (znmw, ). (Entered: 03/29/2010)

03/29/2010

03/29/2010

04/12/2010

04/13/2010

04/14/2010

16 RESPONSE re 1 Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award,, Preliminary Response to
Petition filed by GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed
Order Dismissing Petition, # 2 Declaration Claire L. Jones, # 3 Declaration Michael C.
Young - Part A, # 4 Declaration Michael C. Young - Part B, # 5 Declaration Michael
C. Young - Part C, # 6 Declaration Michael C. Young - Part D, # 7 Declaration
Michael C. Young - Part E, # 8 Declaration Michael C. Young - Part F, # 9 Declaration
Gian C. Ghandi - Part A, # 10 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part B, # 11 Declaration
Gian C. Ghandi - Part C, # 12 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part D, # 13 Declaration
Gian C. Ghandi - Part E, # 14 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part F, # 15 Declaration
Gian C. Ghandi - Part G, # 16 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part H, # 17 Declaration
Gian C. Ghandi - Part I, # 18 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part J, # 19 Declaration
Gian C. Ghandi - Part K, # 20 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part L, # 21 Declaration
Gian C. Ghandi - Part M, # 22 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part N, # 23 Declaration
Gian C. Ghandi - Part O, # 24 Declaration Gian C. Ghandi - Part P, # 25 Declaration
Juan C. Basombrio - Part A, # 26 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part B, # 27
Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part C, # 28 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part D,
# 29 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part E, # 30 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio -
Part F, # 31 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part G, # 32 Declaration Juan C.
Basombrio - Part H, # 33 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part I, # 34 Declaration
Juan C. Basombrio - Part J, # 35 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part K, # 36
Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part L, # 37 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part M,
# 38 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part N, # 39 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio -
Part O, # 40 Declaration Juan C. Basombrio - Part P)(Koeppl, Timothy) (Entered:
03/29/2010)

17 MOTION to Bifurcate by GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE (Attachments: # 1 Text of

Proposed Order Granting Respondents Motion to Bifurcate)(Koeppl, Timothy)
(Entered: 03/29/2010)
MINUTE ORDER GRANTING 13 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
Petition nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 4/12/2010. (lcrjl3)
(Entered: 04/12/2010)

18 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply And/Or Opposition Papers With

Respect To (1) Petition To Confirm Foreign Arbitration Award, (2) Motion To
Stay/Dismiss Petition, And (3) Motion To Bifurcate by BELIZE SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hall, Joseph)
(Entered: 04/13/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 18 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply
And/Or Opposition Papers. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
Petitioner shall file by May 28, 2010, its: (a) Reply in support of the Petition to
Confirm Foreign Arbitration Award and to Enter Judgment; (b) Opposition to
Respondent's Motion to Stay Action or, in the Alternative, Dismiss Petition; and (c)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638891438305926-L_1_0-1

5/9/2014

District of Columbia live database

Page 6 of 12

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 29 of 231

Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Bifurcate. Respondent shall file by July 2, 2010,
its: (a) Reply in support of the Motion to Stay Action or, in the Alternative, Dismiss
Petition; and (b) Reply in support of the Motion to Bifurcate. Signed by Judge Richard
J. Leon on 4/14/2010. (lcrjl3) (Entered: 04/14/2010)

05/10/2010

05/11/2010

05/25/2010

05/26/2010

05/27/2010

06/10/2010

06/14/2010

06/21/2010

06/24/2010

07/08/2010

07/16/2010

07/28/2010

07/28/2010

19 ERRATA To Provide Corrected PDF Of Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In

Support Of Petition To Confirm Arbitration Award And To Enter Judgment by
BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 1 Petition to Confirm Arbitration
Award,, filed by BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit)(Hall, Joseph) (Entered: 05/10/2010)

20 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth Christy Todd on behalf of BELIZE SOCIAL

DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (Todd, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/11/2010)

21 MOTION To Suspend The April 14, 2010 Scheduling Order And For A Status

Conference by BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Hall, Joseph) (Entered: 05/25/2010)

22 Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION To Suspend The April 14, 2010
Scheduling Order And For A Status Conference filed by GOVERNMENT OF
BELIZE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Koeppl, Timothy) (Entered:
05/26/2010)

23 REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 MOTION To Suspend The April 14, 2010

Scheduling Order And For A Status Conference filed by BELIZE SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED. (Hall, Joseph) (Entered: 05/27/2010)

24 REPLY to opposition to motion re 15 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or

stay action MOTION to Stay filed by GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE. (Koeppl,
Timothy) (Entered: 06/10/2010)

25 SURREPLY to re 15 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or stay action
MOTION to Stay filed by BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED. (Hall,
Joseph) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
MINUTE ORDER denying 21 Motion to Suspend the April 14, 2010 Scheduling Order
and for a Status Conference. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 6/21/2010. (lcrjl3) (Entered: 06/21/2010)

26 MOTION To Clarify The June 21, 2010 Minute Order To Ensure A Fair Hearing by

BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text
of Proposed Order)(Hall, Joseph) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

27 Memorandum in opposition to re 26 MOTION To Clarify The June 21, 2010 Minute

Order To Ensure A Fair Hearing filed by GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE. (Attachments:
# 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Koeppl, Timothy) (Entered: 07/08/2010)

28 REPLY to opposition to motion re 26 MOTION To Clarify The June 21, 2010 Minute

Order To Ensure A Fair Hearing filed by BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
LIMITED. (Hall, Joseph) (Entered: 07/16/2010)

29 NOTICE of Appearance by Jay Christopher Johnson on behalf of GOVERNMENT OF

BELIZE (Johnson, Jay) (Entered: 07/28/2010)

30 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to GOVERNMENT OF
BELIZE. Attorney Timothy J. Koeppl terminated. (Koeppl, Timothy) (Entered:
07/28/2010)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638891438305926-L_1_0-1

5/9/2014

District of Columbia live database

Page 7 of 12

USCA Case #14-7002 Document #1492424 Filed: 05/09/2014 Page 30 of 231

10/18/2010

10/18/2010

10/18/2010

11/16/2010

11/17/2010

12/03/2010

08/16/2011

07/20/2012

09/24/2012

10/09/2012

10/23/2012

11/02/2012

12/13/2012

MINUTE ORDER granting 15 Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, Dismiss Petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that the
proceedings in this case shall be STAYED pending resolution of the parties' case
before the Belize Supreme Court. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 10/18/2010.
(lcrjl3) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
MINUTE ORDER denying 17 Motion to Bifurcate as moot. It is hereby ORDERED
that the motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 10/18/2010. (lcrjl3)
(Entered: 10/18/2010)
MINUTE ORDER denying 26 Motion To Clarify the June 21, 2010 Minute Order to
Ensure a Fair Hearing. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Signed by
Judge Richard J. Leon on 10/18/2010. (lcrjl3) (Entered: 10/18/2010)

31 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on

Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion to Stay,, by BELIZE
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0090-
2353925. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Todd, Kenneth) (Entered:
11/16/2010)

32 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court

of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 31 Notice of Appeal,.
(znmw, ) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
USCA Case Number 10-7167 for 31 Notice of Appeal, filed by BELIZE SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED. (jf, ) (Entered: 12/03/2010)

33 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jay Christopher Johnson (Johnson, Jay) (Entered:

08/16/2011)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 9/24/2012 11:00 AM in Courtroom 18
before Judge Richard J. Leon. (kc ) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard J. Leon. Status Conference
held on 9/24/2012. Plaintiff's Pleadings due by 10/9/2012; Defendant's Response due
by 10/23/2012; Plaintiff's Reply due by 11/2/2012. (Court Reporter Pat Kaneshireo-
Miller.) (kc ) (Entered: 09/24/2012)

34 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re Status Conference, Set Deadlines,,

Petitioner's Memorandum Regarding the Resolution of this Case on Remand Following
the Court of Appeals' Grant of Mandamus filed by BELIZE SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED. (MacGrath, Dana) (Entered: 10/09/2012)

35 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re Status Conference, Set Deadlines,, 34
Supplemental Memorandum, Regarding Proposed Procedural Steps After Remand
filed by GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3
Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)
(Johnson, Jay) (Entered: 10/23/2012)

36 REPLY re 34 Supplemental Memorandum, Petitioner's Reply Memorandum

Regarding the Resolution of This Case on Remand Following the Court of Appeals'
Grant of Mandamus filed by BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED.
(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kimmelman, Louis) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
37 ORDER, Ordered that oral argument on the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and

to Enter Judgment 1 , and all of the related submissions by the parties including the
papers filed by the parties relating to the Motion to Stay Action or, in the Alternative,

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638891438305926-