FOLLOW US

A federal jurist in Washington, D.C. has denied Argentina's motion to dismiss a legal proceeding aiming to enforce a $325 million arbitration ruling. The case stems from a disagreement over the renationalization of the nation's state-owned airline, Aerolíneas Argentinas, and comes following a tribunal's decision in favor of the complainants. In her judgement, Judge Jia M. Cobb upheld the suit as timely under a 12-year statute of limitations.

On Monday, Judge Cobb ruled that Titan Consortium 1 LLC's lawsuit, submitted in 2021, falls within the 12-year statute of limitations outlined in Section 15-101 of the D.C. Code. The judge rejected Argentina's argument that a three-year statute of limitations, drawn from federal or D.C. arbitration law, should apply. Titan seeks to enforce the arbitration award granted to affiliates of the Spanish travel group Grupo Marsans, which invested in Aerolíneas Argentinas and its sister airline Austral Cielos del Sur before Argentina seized the companies' shares without compensation in 2008.

Judge Cobb's ruling affirmed that the applicable statute of limitations for enforcing judgments is 12 years, as defined by D.C. law. Titan argued that the D.C. code governing enforcement of monetary judgments is the most appropriate analogy for the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration award. The court concurred, noting that ICSID awards should be treated similarly to state court judgments, as required by 22 U.S.C. Section 1650a, which governs the enforcement of ICSID awards.

"This law establishes a twelve-year limitations period for the enforcement of any 'final judgment or final decree for the payment of money rendered in the... Superior Court of the District of Columbia,'" Judge Cobb wrote in her opinion.

Argentina's attempts to dismiss the case held little ground according to the judge. The nation referenced the Federal Arbitration Act's three-year deadline and the District's similar statute of limitations. However, the presiding official emphasized that practical enforcement of International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes awards took priority. Lengthy annulment proceedings often postponed final rulings, so a condensed window risked redundant concurrent litigation.

This dispute traces back to 2009 involving Marsans affiliates suing over expropriated stakes in two airlines. The tribunal found confiscating the shares contravened investment protections granted by Spain, awarding $320 million plus fees to the claimants. Argentina paid symbolic recompense of a lone peso when seizing control, propelling the arbitration determination.