Arbitral Digest

Matter

Getma International v Republic of Guinea

Aliases: GETMA International v Republic of Guinea · Getma International v Guinea

Case no.
CCJA Case No. 001/2011/ARB
Applicable rules
CCJA Arbitration Rules of 11 March 1999
Substantive governing law
Guinean law · OHADA Treaty and Uniform Acts
Commencement year
2011
  1. 29 April 2014Arbitration

    29 April 2014Arbitration

    Getma International v Republic of Guinea - Final Award

    Common Court of Justice and Arbitration of OHADA

    Award no.
    CCJA Case No. 001/2011/ARB
    Decision summary
    The tribunal found the termination irregular and awarded compensation of EUR 20,884,966 for termination, EUR 3,234,995 for conceded assets, EUR 14,201,096 for the unamortized entry fee and EUR 210,070 for stock. Interest was tied to the ECB discount rate plus one percentage point from 10 May 2011. Each party bore its legal fees and the parties shared other arbitration costs; total arbitration costs were FCFA 100,480,332, including FCFA 40,480,332 in arbitrator fees.

    Supporting details

    13 authorities · 6 participants
    Getma International SAS
    Republic of Guinea
    Common Court of Justice and Arbitration of OHADA
    Arbitrator
    Arbitrator O N
    Arbitrator
    Arbitrator C E

    Authorities cited

    13
    • OHADA Treaty (Treaty on the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa, Article 10)
      statute
    • OHADA Uniform Act of 11 March 1999 relating to arbitration, Applicable arbitration framework
      statute
    • CCJA Arbitration Rules of 11 March 1999, Article 31 of the Concession Agreement and CCJA rules
      statute
    • Guinean Civil Code, Article 668(1)
      statute
    • International Law Institute Resolution on State Contracts (Athens, 1979; Rev. crit. DIP 1980.427, Athens, 1979; Rev. crit. DIP 1980.427)
      academic
    • Ioannis Kardassopoulos v Georgia
      case
    • SPP v Egypt
      case
    • Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and Others v Ukraine
      case
    • Desert Line Project v Yemen
      case
    • Fraport v Philippines
      case
    • McLachlan, Shore and Weininger
      academic
    • Dolzer and Schreuer
      academic
    • Gaillard
      academic

    1 month and 20 days later · 50 days

  2. 18 June 2014France

    18 June 2014France

    Paris First Instance Court recognition and enforcement order dated 18 June 2014

    Paris First Instance Court

    Case no.
    CCJA Case No. 001/2011/ARB
    Decision summary
    The court granted recognition and enforcement of the 29 April 2014 CCJA award. The order became final when no appeal was filed.

    Supporting details

    1 authority · 2 participants
    Getma International SAS
    Republic of Guinea
    Paris First Instance Court

    Authorities cited

    1
    • French Code of Civil Procedure, Recognition and enforcement framework
      statute

    7 months and 29 days later · 243 days

  3. 16 February 2015France

    16 February 2015France

    Paris Commercial Court order dated 16 February 2015

    Paris Commercial Court

    Case no.
    RG 2015/00241
    Decision summary
    The court refused summary relief because the arbitrators' claim for unpaid fee provisions was seriously disputed.

    Supporting details

    1 authority · 4 participants
    Getma International SAS
    Arbitrator O N
    Arbitrator Z F D
    Arbitrator C E
    Paris Commercial Court

    Authorities cited

    1
    • French Code of Civil Procedure, Article 873(2)
      statute

    4 months and 14 days later · 134 days

  4. 30 June 2015France

    30 June 2015France

    Paris Court of Appeal fee judgment dated 30 June 2015

    Paris Court of Appeal, Panel 1, Chamber 1

    Case no.
    RG 15/04910
    Decision summary
    The court reversed the 16 February 2015 order and ordered Getma to pay the arbitrators EUR 108,000, EUR 81,000 and EUR 81,000, plus EUR 3,000 each under Article 700 and costs.

    Supporting details

    3 authorities · 4 participants
    Getma International SAS
    Arbitrator O N
    Arbitrator Z F D
    Arbitrator C E
    Paris Court of Appeal, Panel 1, Chamber 1

    Authorities cited

    3
    • French Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 873(2) and 700
      statute
    • French Civil Code, Article 1202
      statute
    • CCJA Arbitration Rules of 11 March 1999, Article 11.2
      statute

    4 months and 4 days later · 126 days

  5. 3 November 2015United States

    3 November 2015United States

    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stay memorandum opinion dated 3 November 2015

    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

    Case no.
    Civil Action No. 14-1616 (RBW)
    Citation
    142 F. Supp. 3d 110; 2015 WL 6735625
    Decision summary
    The court stayed confirmation through 30 April 2016 pending the CCJA annulment proceeding and required no security.

    Supporting details

    23 authorities · 3 participants
    Getma International SAS
    Republic of Guinea
    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

    Authorities cited

    23
    • New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 10 June 1958, Article V(1)(e))
      statute
    • Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. Sections 201-208, Sections 201, 202 and 207)
      statute
    • G.E. Transport S.P.A. v Republic of Albania (693 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D.D.C. 2010), 693 F. Supp. 2d 132, 136 and note 5)
      case
    • TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v Electranta S.P. (487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2007), 487 F.3d 928, 934-35)
      case
    • Europcar Italia, S.p.A. v Maiellano Tours, Inc. (156 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 1998), 156 F.3d 310, 316-18)
      case
    • Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. v Federal Government of Nigeria (697 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2010), 697 F. Supp. 2d 46, 59)
      case
    • Jorf Lasfar Energy Co., S.C.A. v AMCI Export Corp. (2005 WL 3533128 (W.D. Pa. 2005), 2005 WL 3533128)
      case
    • Alto Mar Girassol v Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (2005 WL 947126 (N.D. Ill. 2005), 2005 WL 947126)
      case
    • CPConstruction Pioneers Baugesellschaft Anstalt v Government of Republic of Ghana (578 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D.D.C. 2008), 578 F. Supp. 2d 50, 54)
      case
    • Polimaster Ltd. v RAE Systems, Inc. (623 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2010), 623 F.3d 832, 840)
      case
    • Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. (473 U.S. 614 (1985), 473 U.S. 614, 625)
      case
    • Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v Byrd (470 U.S. 213 (1985), 470 U.S. 213, 217-21)
      case
    • Encyclopaedia Universalis S.A. v Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (403 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2005), 403 F.3d 85, 91)
      case
    • Chevron Corp. v Republic of Ecuador (949 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2013), aff'd, 795 F.3d 200 (D.C. Cir. 2015), 949 F. Supp. 2d 57, 61 and 72)
      case
    • MGM Production Group, Inc. v Aeroflot Russian Airlines (573 F. Supp. 2d 772 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), 573 F. Supp. 2d 772, 778)
      case
    • In re Arbitration Between InterDigital Communications Corp. and Samsung Electronics (528 F. Supp. 2d 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), 528 F. Supp. 2d 340, 361)
      case
    • Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v Telkom SA Ltd. (95 F. App'x 361 (D.C. Cir. 2004), 95 F. App'x 361, 362-63)
      case
    • Higgins v SPX Corp. (2006 WL 1008677 (W.D. Mich. 2006), 2006 WL 1008677)
      case
    • Consorcio Rive v Briggs of Cancun, Inc. (1999 WL 1009806 (E.D. La. 1999), 1999 WL 1009806)
      case
    • Caribbean Trading and Fidelity Corp. v Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. (1990 WL 213030 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), 1990 WL 213030)
      case
    • Fertilizer Corporation of India v IDI Management, Inc. (517 F. Supp. 948 (S.D. Ohio 1981), 517 F. Supp. 948, 962)
      case
    • Belize Social Development Ltd. v Government of Belize (668 F.3d 724 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 668 F.3d 724, 732-33)
      case
    • DRC, Inc. v Republic of Honduras (774 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 2011), 774 F. Supp. 2d 66, 76)
      case

    16 days later · 16 days

  6. 19 November 2015Cote d'Ivoire

    19 November 2015Cote d'Ivoire

    CCJA Judgment No. 139/2015

    Common Court of Justice and Arbitration of OHADA

    Case no.
    Record No. 130/2014/PC
    Citation
    CCJA Judgment No. 139/2015
    Decision summary
    The court annulled the 29 April 2014 award, rejected Getma's recognition request, allowed reopening by a diligent party, and ordered Getma to pay costs. It held that the tribunal exceeded its mission and breached essential rules by relying on an arrangement that increased arbitrator fees after the CCJA had fixed them.

    Supporting details

    8 authorities · 8 participants
    Republic of Guinea
    Representative
    Mamadou Traore (For: Republic of Guinea)
    Representative
    Christophe Birba (For: Republic of Guinea)
    Representative
    Pascal Agboyibor (For: Republic of Guinea)
    Representative
    Laurent Jaeger (For: Republic of Guinea)
    Getma International SAS
    Representative
    Mamadou Konate (For: Getma International SAS)
    Representative
    Fischer Tandeau de Marsac Sur Associes (For: Getma International SAS)
    Common Court of Justice and Arbitration of OHADA

    Authorities cited

    8
    • OHADA Treaty (Treaty on the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa, Articles 21-25)
      statute
    • OHADA Uniform Act of 11 March 1999 relating to arbitration, Article 10
      statute
    • CCJA Arbitration Rules of 11 March 1999, Articles 10.1, 24.2, 24.3, 25.1, 29 and 30
      statute
    • CCJA Rules of Procedure, Article 14
      statute
    • CCJA Decision No. 004/99 on Arbitration Fees (Decision No. 004/99/CCJA, 3 February 1999, Article 9)
      statute
    • CCJA Decision No. 56/2011/CCJA/ADM/ARB, 24 October 2011, 24 October 2011
      case
    • CCJA Decision No. 081/2013/CCJA/ADM/ARB, 1 August 2013, 1 August 2013
      case
    • CCJA Decision No. 096/2013/CCJA/ADM/ARB, 3 October 2013, 3 October 2013
      case

    6 months and 21 days later · 203 days

  7. 9 June 2016United States

    9 June 2016United States

    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia final memorandum opinion dated 9 June 2016

    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

    Case no.
    Civil Action No. 14-1616 (RBW), Doc. 38
    Citation
    191 F. Supp. 3d 43; 2016 WL 3211808
    Decision summary
    The court denied confirmation and enforcement after the CCJA annulled the award. It held that the CCJA was a competent authority and that the annulment did not offend fundamental morality or justice.

    Supporting details

    14 authorities · 3 participants
    Getma International SAS
    Republic of Guinea
    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

    Authorities cited

    14
    • New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 10 June 1958, Article V(1)(e))
      statute
    • Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. Sections 201-208, Sections 201, 202 and 207)
      statute
    • G.E. Transport S.P.A. v Republic of Albania (693 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D.D.C. 2010), 693 F. Supp. 2d 132, 136 and note 5)
      case
    • TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v Electranta S.P. (487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2007), 487 F.3d 928, 936-39)
      case
    • Tahan v Hodgson (662 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1981), 662 F.2d 862, 864 and note 17)
      case
    • Gold Reserve Inc. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (2015 WL 7428532 (D.D.C. 2015), 2015 WL 7428532, *14)
      case
    • Ackermann v Levine (788 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1986), 788 F.2d 830, 841)
      case
    • Karaha Bodas Co. v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara (364 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2004), 364 F.3d 274, 305-06)
      case
    • Industrial Risk Insurers v M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshutte GmbH (141 F.3d 1434 (11th Cir. 1998), 141 F.3d 1434, 1446)
      case
    • M and C Corp. v Erwin Behr GmbH and Co., KG (87 F.3d 844 (6th Cir. 1996), 87 F.3d 844, 851)
      case
    • Chevron Corp. v Republic of Ecuador (949 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2013), aff'd, 795 F.3d 200 (D.C. Cir. 2015), 949 F. Supp. 2d 57, 71)
      case
    • Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v Government of Lao People's Democratic Republic (997 F. Supp. 2d 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), 997 F. Supp. 2d 214, 224)
      case
    • Parsons and Whittemore Overseas Co. v Societe Generale de l'Industrie du Papier (RAKTA) (508 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1974), 508 F.2d 969, 975)
      case
    • TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v Electrificadora del Atlantico S.A. E.S.P. (421 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D.D.C. 2006), 421 F. Supp. 2d 87, 101)
      case

    28 days later · 28 days

  8. 7 July 2016France

    7 July 2016France

    Paris First Instance Court constitutional-question order RG 16/81173 dated 7 July 2016

    Paris First Instance Court

    Case no.
    RG 16/81173
    Decision summary
    The court refused to transmit the priority constitutional question concerning the AFD seizure.

    Supporting details

    1 authority · 3 participants
    Getma International SAS
    Republic of Guinea
    French Development Agency
    Paris First Instance Court

    Authorities cited

    1
    • French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, Enforcement and seizure framework
      statute
  9. 7 July 2016France

    7 July 2016France

    Paris First Instance Court enforcement judgment RG 16/80733 dated 7 July 2016

    Paris First Instance Court

    Case no.
    RG 16/80733
    Decision summary
    The court treated requests concerning Banque de France and BNP Paribas seizures as moot or rejected, found an expert request inadmissible, upheld attributive effect for the Veolia seizure at EUR 165,517, released the portion concerning ARMP revenues, and dismissed the remaining claims. ARMP was ordered to pay EUR 2,000 under Article 700.

    Supporting details

    2 authorities · 3 participants
    Getma International SAS
    Republic of Guinea
    ARMP
    Paris First Instance Court

    Authorities cited

    2
    • French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, Seizure and attribution provisions
      statute
    • French Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 450 and 700
      statute

    3 months and 6 days later · 98 days

  10. 13 October 2016France

    13 October 2016France

    Paris First Instance Court AFD release order RG 16/81173 dated 13 October 2016

    Paris First Instance Court

    Case no.
    RG 16/81173
    Decision summary
    The court ordered release of the AFD seizure made on 21 October 2015.

    Supporting details

    1 authority · 3 participants
    Getma International SAS
    Republic of Guinea
    French Development Agency
    Paris First Instance Court

    Authorities cited

    1
    • French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, Seizure release framework
      statute

    3 months and 19 days later · 111 days

  11. 1 February 2017France

    1 February 2017France

    French Court of Cassation fee judgment dated 1 February 2017

    French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber

    Case no.
    Appeal No. 15-25.687
    Citation
    ECLI FR:CCASS:2017:C100145
    Decision summary
    The court dismissed Getma's appeal and confirmed the fee-provision relief for the arbitrators.

    Supporting details

    3 authorities · 1 participant
    Getma International SAS
    French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber

    Authorities cited

    3
    • CCJA Arbitration Rules of 11 March 1999, Article 11.2
      statute
    • French Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 873(2) and 455
      statute
    • French Civil Code, Article 1202
      statute

    1 month and 8 days later · 36 days

  12. 9 March 2017France

    9 March 2017France

    Paris Court of Appeal AFD-seizure judgment RG 16/20427 dated 9 March 2017

    Paris Court of Appeal

    Case no.
    RG 16/20427
    Decision summary
    The court confirmed the 7 July 2016 order in the AFD seizure proceedings, including the refusal to transmit the constitutional question.

    Supporting details

    1 authority · 3 participants
    Getma International SAS
    Republic of Guinea
    French Development Agency
    Paris Court of Appeal

    Authorities cited

    1
    • French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, Seizure proceedings
      statute

    3 months and 28 days later · 120 days

  13. 7 July 2017United States

    7 July 2017United States

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit judgment dated 7 July 2017

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

    Case no.
    No. 16-7087
    Citation
    862 F.3d 45
    Decision summary
    The court affirmed the refusal to confirm and enforce the annulled award. It held that the CCJA was a competent authority and that no extraordinary circumstance justified disregarding its annulment.

    Supporting details

    8 authorities · 11 participants
    Getma International SAS
    Representative
    Allen B. Green (For: Getma International SAS)
    Representative
    William T. O'Brien (For: Getma International SAS)
    Representative
    Ivan W. Bilaniuk (For: Getma International SAS)
    Republic of Guinea
    Representative
    Jeffrey M. Prokop (For: Republic of Guinea)
    Representative
    James Grohsgal (For: Republic of Guinea)
    Representative
    Jamie L. Shookman (For: Republic of Guinea)
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

    Authorities cited

    8
    • New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 10 June 1958, Article V(1)(e))
      statute
    • Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. Sections 201-208, Sections 201-208)
      statute
    • TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v Electranta S.P. (487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2007), 487 F.3d 928, 936-39)
      case
    • Tahan v Hodgson (662 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1981), 662 F.2d 862, 864)
      case
    • Karaha Bodas Co. v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara (364 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2004), 364 F.3d 274, 305-06)
      case
    • Corporacion Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S. de R.L. de C.V. v Pemex-Exploracion y Produccion (832 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2016), 832 F.3d 92, 100)
      case
    • Asignacion v Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH and Cie KG (783 F.3d 1010 (5th Cir. 2015), 783 F.3d 1010, 1014-15)
      case
    • de Csepel v Republic of Hungary (714 F.3d 591 (D.C. Cir. 2013), 714 F.3d 591, 606)
      case

    1 year, 6 months and 3 days later · 552 days

  14. 10 January 2019France

    10 January 2019France

    Paris Court of Appeal enforcement judgment RG 16/15796 dated 10 January 2019

    Paris Court of Appeal, Panel 4, Chamber 8

    Case no.
    RG 16/15796
    Citation
    Portalis 35L7-V-B7A-BZJIQ
    Decision summary
    The court refused to join the separate AFD appeal, upheld attributive effect for the Veolia seizure at EUR 165,517, released the ARMP-revenue portion, and rejected the remaining release, abuse and expert claims. The liquidators were ordered to pay the Republic EUR 5,000 under Article 700 and costs.

    Supporting details

    3 authorities · 3 participants
    Getma International SAS
    Republic of Guinea
    ARMP
    Paris Court of Appeal, Panel 4, Chamber 8

    Authorities cited

    3
    • French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, Article L.121-2
      statute
    • French Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 450 and 700
      statute
    • French Law No. 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 (Sapin II) (Law No. 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016, Public-sector assets and enforcement)
      statute

Matter record

Report a correction

Getma International v Republic of Guinea · Matter