Conproca, S.A. De C.V. v. Petroleos Mexicanos et al, No. 1:2011cv09165 - Document 46 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re: 37 MOTION / Notice of Motion to Require Respondents to Post Security During the Stay or, in the Alternative, Lift the Stay and Confirm Arbitration Awards . filed by Conproca, S.A. De C.V.. For the foregoing reasons herein, CONPROCA's motion to require PEMEX to post security under Article VI of the Panama Convention during the continued stay of the enforcement of the awards (Dkt. No. 37) is granted, and PEMEX is directed to post security in the amount of $592,926,082.74, which represents the present (as of August 2014) full gross amount, plus interest, awarded to CONPROCA by the arbitrators' Final Award on Quantum. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 12/11/2014) (kgo)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
"\ Conproca, S.A. De C.V. v. Petroleos Mexicanos et al Doc. 46 '!RIGI~J,"L rsnc ...:n~Y DO<. I \!f\T ELU TRO\IC \LLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC ';=----~+:-J-+·r-t - - - - X DATE FILED: / CONPROCA, S.A. DE C.V., Petitioner, 11 Civ. 9165 (LLS) - against OPINION AND ORDER PETROLEOS MEXICANOS AND PEMEX REFINANCION, Respondents. - X Petitioner venture CONPROCA, S.A. between multinational laws of Mexico, Mexicanos, petitions Mexico's de ("CONPROCA"), corporations organized to require a respondents (a) national C.V. oil its affiliate Pemex-Refinanci6n exploration (collectively, joint under the Petr6leos corporation, "PEMEX") and to post suitable security during the continued stay of these proceedings to confirm two arbitral Mexico under Mexican law, awards or ln (b) CONPROCA' s favor issued in to lift the stay and confirm the awards. The facts of this case are set forth in my October 17, 2013 Opinion denying PEMEX's motion to dismiss CONPROCA's petition to confirm the awards under forum non conveniens, motion to stay the enforcement of the granting PEMEX's awards, and staying further proceedings on CONPROCA's confirmation petition until 30 days after the expiration of the time to review the decision of whatever Mexican court ultimately determines the validity of the - 1 - Dockets.Justia.com awards in Mexicanos, 2013). Mexico. No. 11 Civ. S.A. Conproca, 9165, de C. V. 2013 WL 5664988 v. Petr6leos (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, Familiarity with that opinion is assumed. When that ruling was made, PEMEX' s annulment petition (to vacate the awards) was pending in the Eleventh District Court in Mexico. The parties estimated that the Mexican District Court decision would be subject to two potential levels of appellate review, and that it would take a year or two for it to become final. In granting PEMEX' s motion to stay the enforcement of the awards, I held: Mexico has an important interest in its review of those awards: they concern a Mexican national instrumentality, a Mexican joint venture, and the application of law which both parties have agreed governs their disputes. It is the function of Mexican courts, not United States Courts, to declare what Mexican law is. In this case, the better course is to respect Mexico's interest in determining the validity of the awards under Mexican law and refrain from action until the Mexican courts render their judgment. The stay is therefore granted. * * * * * Questions regarding the need for, and appropriate amount of security, if any, to be posted during the pendency of the stay may be addressed by application, if so desired. Conproca, S.A. de C.V., 2013 WL 5664988, at *3. Since that time, the Eleventh District Court and the Fourth Collegiate Court have dismissed PEMEX' s - 2 - annulment petition and PEMEX has Justice likely appealed of decisions PEMEX Mexico. resolve prevails, those the case then the in says to the Supreme that the Supreme to nine Court months. four awards may be annulled, Court If of will PEMEX or remanded to the lower courts to implement the Supreme Court's ruling. PEMEX's Opposition dated September 26, 2014, at p. 4. PEMEX indicates it has in store more defenses to CONPROCA's motion to confirm the awards. PEMEX does not simply accept that its liability depends on the outcome of the Mexican litigation. It states that if the Mexican Supreme Court denies its annulment petition, it will raise further arguments against enforcement of the underlying debt in this Court: If the Award is not annulled in Mexico, confirmation here would not be automatic because Pemex intends to renew its motion to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction, venue, and forum non conveniens - which this Court denied without prejudice precisely so Pemex could renew them if the Award was not annulled. Id. at 6. Thus, bond on (which the situation is analogous to seeking a appeal: will be arguments against provides, "If stay by an it furnishes contested it fail. appeal supersedeas is bond." in security the See The meantime) Fed. taken, for R. - 3 - ultimate if Civ. appellant bond's purpose payment all P. the that the prevailing party will recover in full, supersedeas 62(d) further which may obtain "is to a ensure if the decision should be affirmed, while protecting the other side against the risk that payment cannot be recouped if the decision should be reversed." Cohen v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., (2d Cir. 2009) When an decision, (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). appealing he posts a may be made 334 F. App'x 375, 378 whole party challenges a court's supersedeas bond so that if the appeal is underlying the other party unsuccessful. Similarly, PEMEX's contemplation of an array of further attacks made within the United States court the arbitration system, awards as well as fairly gives in Mexico, CONPROCA against access to corresponding supersedeas protection. For the foregoing reasons, CONPROCA's motion to require PEMEX to post security under Article VI of the Panama Convention during the continued stay of the enforcement of the awards No. 37) is granted, and PEMEX is directed to post security in the amount of $5 92, 92 6, 0 82. 7 4, of August 2014) full (Dkt. gross which represents the present amount, plus interest, 1 awarded to CONPROCA by the arbitrators' Final Award on Quantum. So ordered. While the parties dispute the correct amount of interest and VAT, as well as a substantial offset, this amount protects CONPROCA to the full present extent of its possible recovery. 1 - 4 - (as Dated: New York, New York December 11, 2014 LOUIS L. STANTON U.S.D.J. - 5 -
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
