This column is like one of those television commercials that shows two people on a split screen. One chooses product A and winds up with a smiling face, very happy and satisfied. The other chooses product B and is shown frowning and frustrated. In our column, though, the “products” are two different federal district courts. And, the disparate reaction of the “customers” is based on the very different ways that these two courts handled requests to enforce the exact same arbitration award.

Background of the Arbitration

The dispute in the underlying case involves the Micula family and the government of Romania. Ioan and Viorel Micula are twin brothers who were born in Romania. In the 1980s, the Miculas renounced their Romanian citizenship, moved to Sweden and obtained Swedish nationality in 1992 and 1995, respectively. They were engaged in the beverage business.

After the overthrow of the Ceaușescu regime in December 1989, Romania found itself in a deep economic and social crisis. In this context, Romania undertook serious efforts to attract both foreign and domestic investment. The Miculas began to invest in Romania in 1991, and continued investing throughout the next two decades.