Content Join OGEMID
 
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Rss

Transnational Dispute Management

Skip navigation

Transnational Dispute Management

The network for international arbitration, mediation and ADR, international investment law and Transnational Dispute Management

Join OGEMID

Transnational Dispute Management

The network for international arbitration, mediation and ADR, international investment law and Transnational Dispute Management

  • Sign in
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • Sign in
  • About About
    1. Home
    2. About
    3. About TDM
    4. About TDM
    5. Founding Editor T.W. Wälde
    6. T.W. Wälde
    7. Editorial team
    8. Editorial team
    9. Contributing Authors
    10. Contributing Authors
    11. Subscriptions
    12. Subscriptions
  • Journal Journal
    1. Home
    2. Journal
    3. Browse Issues
    4. Browse
    5. Articles by Category
    6. By Category
    7. Articles by Author
    8. By Author
    9. Advance publication
    10. Advance publication
    11. Specials
    12. Specials
    13. Search
    14. Search
    15. Book reviews
    16. Reviews
  • Legal & Regulatory docs. L & r docs
    1. Home
    2. Legal & Regulatory docs.
    3. L&R by Country
    4. L&R by Country
    5. L&R by Category
    6. L&R by Category
    7. L&R recent additions
    8. L&R recent additions
    9. Search
    10. Search
  • Audiovisual library AV library
    1. Home
    2. Audiovisual library
    3. Audiovisual Library
    4. Audiovisual Library
    5. TDM/OGEMID Interviews
    6. TDM/OGEMID Interviews
    7. Conference presentations
    8. Conference presentations
  • OGEMID OGEMID
    1. Home
    2. OGEMID
    3. About OGEMID
    4. About OGEMID
    5. Suggest a topic
    6. Suggest a topic
    7. Guest programme
    8. Guest programme
    9. Seminar programme
    10. Seminar programme
    11. Browse archive
    12. Browse archive
    13. Search
    14. Search
    15. Join
    16. Join
  • News & Events Events
    1. Home
    2. News & Events
    3. News
    4. News
    5. Events
    6. Events
  • Subscribe
Home > Legal & Regulatory docs.

United States v Real Property Located at 7505 and 7171 Forest Lane, Dallas, Texas 75230 - District Court, S.D. Florida Case No 1-20-cv-23278 (Optima Ventures) - Claimant's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Consolidated Case No 1-20-Cv-23279, includes Delaware Chancery Court - Memorandum Opinion) - 25 April 2022

  • Sign in to download document
Country
  • Ukraine
  • United States
Year

2022

Summary

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Claimants demonstrated in their Brief that principles of international comity apply to the United States' claims and require this Court to abstain from considering this matter in light of Ukraine-based parallel proceedings and judgments addressing the same fundamental issues in dispute. In its Opposition, the United States contends, without any basis in law or fact, that these Ukrainian proceedings and judgments do not matter and should be given no weight by this Court.

The United States is wrong, and this Court should abstain.

First, in arguing that the Ukrainian litigations are not parallel proceedings because they allegedly do not involve substantially the same facts and parties, the United States ignores that the Ukrainian litigations focus on the core issue here: whether the Ukrainian loans at the heart of the United States' claims were valid and legitimate or the product of fraud. All of the United States' claims are premised on the allegation that the proceeds used to acquire PNC Plaza ultimately came from the NZF and ZFZ Loans, which the United States asserts were fraudulently obtained in violation of Ukrainian law. The rulings in the NZF and ZFZ Judgments--which confirmed that the NZF and ZFZ Loans were entirely valid and lawful, bear directly on, and indeed disprove, the United States' claims. The Ukrainian court that issued the NZF Judgment addressed and rejected the United States' allegations that the NZF Loan was fraudulently obtained.

Second, the United States has it backwards in arguing it would be unprecedented for this Court to abstain from this case. What is unprecedented here is not Claimants' motion to dismiss but rather the United States' determination to pursue civil forfeiture claims based on allegations that have been adjudicated and rejected by a competent foreign tribunal. The United States does not and cannot point to a single instance in which a court allowed the United States to ignore directly applicable foreign judgments in pursuit of a civil forfeiture claim. This Court should not be the first to permit the United States to engage in such overreach, and the Verified Complaint should be dismissed on grounds of abstention based on international comity.

Third, this Court should reject the United States' innuendo and insinuation suggesting Ukrainian courts are somehow flawed such that their judgments and/or proceedings are not worthy of deference. The United States offers absolutely no evidence to support this insulting characterization, and its apparent reliance on "questions" supposedly raised by PrivatBank in a Delaware case does not provide any basis to ignore the NZF (or any other Ukrainian) Judgment.

In fact, the Delaware court stayed PrivatBank's lawsuit in favor of the parallel Ukrainian proceedings, and found that in issuing judgments the Ukrainian courts considered the "evidence, including `detailed accounting source documents regarding the exact purpose for which the loan proceeds were used' and `bank statements and other official documents' confirming repayment." Ex. 1 at 15. The United States' cheap-shot characterization of a Ukrainian decision it does not like as an instance of a Ukrainian judge "obliging" one of the litigants--as opposed to a judgment issued after the court conducted a proper analysis of the law and facts--is gratuitious vilification of Ukraine's courts that is no substitute for proper legal argument and analysis.

Finally, the United States fails to rebut Claimants' arguments that (i) prospective comity applies because of Ukraine's predominant interest in governing conduct in its territory, by its nationals, against its most important bank; (ii) prescriptive comity requires this Court to interpret the statutes under which the United States intends to proceed to avoid interfering with Ukraine's sovereign right to police itself and its people; and (iii) the Verified Complaint should be dismissed because the United States does not adequately trace the purportedly illicit funds through to the acquisition of PNC Plaza.

For the reasons set forth in Claimants' Brief, and as set forth below, this Court should abstain from hearing this matter and dismiss the Verified Complaint in its entirety.

...

To download this document you need to be a subscriber

Sign in

Forgot password?

Sign in

Subscribe

Fill in the registration form and answer a few simple questions to receive a quote.

Subscribe now

Documents missing? Documents to share? Let us know!

If you know of documents which are currently missing from our Legal & Regulatory database do let us know. You can send them directly to us for inclusion in the database, anonymously or otherwise.
Learn more here

Call for contributions

TDM Call for Papers: Sanctions and International Arbitration: Impact on Substantive and Procedural Issues

Ali Burney, Rinat Gareev, Kiran Nasir Gore, Dini Sejko, Prof. Joel Slawotsky, May Tai

  • Ali Burney
  • Rinat Gareev
  • Kiran Gore
  • Dr Dini Sejko
  • Prof. Joel Slawotsky
  • May Tai

TDM Call for Papers: National Courts as a Forum for the Resolution of Disputes under Article 26 Energy Charter Treaty

John P. Gaffney, Dr. iur Richard Happ,
Lucia Raimanova, Anna-Maria Tamminen, Dr. Catharine Titi

  • John P. Gaffney
  • Dr. iur Ricard Happ
  • Lucia Raimanova
  • Anna-Maria Tamminen
  • Dr. Catharine Titi

TDM Call for Papers: International Investment Arbitration - Environmental Protection and Climate Change Issues

Professor Dr A F M Maniruzzaman, Wendy J. Miles QC, Carla Lewis, Dr Stephen Minas

  • Professor Dr A F M Maniruzzaman
  • Wendy J. Miles QC
  • Carla Lewis
  • Dr Stephen Minas

TDM Call for Papers: The African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA)

J. Chaisse, J. Górski, E. Laryea, M.M. Mbengue, and K. Olaoye

  • Prof. Julien Chaisse
  • Dr. Jedrzej Gorski
  • Prof. Emmanuel Laryea
  • Prof. Makane Moïse Mbengue
  • Kehinde Olaoye
  • More
  • Contribute

Advance publication

Consequences of Not Regulating Third-Party Funding in Commercial Arbitration in Ecuador

24 Mar 2023

D.F. Ibarra Villacís

  • D.F. Ibarra Villacís

Transnational Investment State Arbitration: A New Game-Changer for Global Climate Change Goals

20 Mar 2023

I.D. Valones

  • I.D. Valones

Summary of Young-OGEMID Symposium No. 14: "International Arbitration and International Commercial Courts: Competitive or Complementary?" (March 2022)

3 Mar 2023

E.S. Delgado

  • E.S. Delgado
  • More
  • Contribute

Stay connected

Sign up for our email alerts.

  • Issues
  • Advance publication
  • News
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • RSS

Join the debate

Want to join OGEMID, the leading on-line discussion platform for international dispute resolution?

Simply fill in the registration form to start your trial membership.

Download the app

  1. App store
  2. Google play

The Transnational Dispute Management Journal (TDM, ISSN 1875-4120) and OGEMID listserv focus on recent developments in the area of (investment) arbitration and dispute management, regulation, treaties, judicial and arbitral cases, voluntary guidelines, tax and contracting. Read our Terms & Conditions here, and our Privacy Policy here.

About TDM

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Contribute
  • Subscriptions
  • Contact
  • Help

Other publications

  • Oil, Gas & Energy Law Intelligence (OGEL)

© 2004 - 2023. Published by MARIS.

  • Home
  • Contribute
  • Subscriptions
  • Contact
  • Help