Judge Kimba Wood
Ancile Investment sought damages for Archer Daniels Midland’s (ADM) purported violation of state and Brazilian law. District court dismissed Ancile’s claims. It denied ADM’s application for $433,193 in attorney’s fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) and Article 20 of Brazil’s Code of Civil Procedure (Code). New York law applied to ADM’s fee motion. Thus, under the “American rule” ADM was not entitled to fees. The court further determined that even if Brazilian law applied to ADM’s claims, ADM did not demonstrate entitlement to fees. ADM’s expert on Brazilian law did not explain how a Brazilian judge would calculate the amount of fees to which a given party was entitled. Nor did ADM provide an adequate translation of the relevant Brazilian law. ADM suggested that the court use an online translation service to translate Brazil’s Code from Portuguese into English. Further, ADM failed to completely present how fees to a prevailing party should be calculated, and provided no Brazilian authority justifying application of the American “lodestar” method of calculating attorney’s fees. Moreover, ADM’s proffered translation of a Brazilian statute was insufficient to establish the proper measure of attorney fees under Brazilian law.
