OPINION AND ORDER Petitioners Global Gold Mining LLC and Global Gold Corporation (together, “Global Gold” or “Petitioners”) have filed a motion for summary judgment requesting confirmation of a final arbitration award issued pursuant to a contract between the parties requiring arbitration. This is Petitioners’ second request for confirmation, as they obtained confirmation of a partial award in a previous case in this District before Judge Kenneth M. Karas. See Glob. Gold Min. LLC v. Caldera Res., Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 374, 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Global Gold I”). Petitioners now seek confirmation of the arbitrator’s final award. The motion is unopposed. While Respondent Caldera Resources, Inc. (“Caldera” or “Respondent”) appeared for the initial hearings before the arbitrator and the proceedings before Judge Karas, it declined to appear in the final arbitral hearings and has not appeared at all before this Court. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioners’ motion is granted in part, with modifications made to the arbitration award’s calculation of post-judgment interest. BACKGROUND1A. Factual BackgroundFor Petitioners, the history of this case conjures up images of digging for years through sediment and rock in order to reach the gemstones beneath. The parties have already been before this Court several times. First, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, sitting in Part One, selected an arbitrator for the parties. See Order Appointing Arbitrator, No. 11 Misc. 25, Caldera Res., Inc. v. Global Gold Mining LLC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2011). Then, upon the parties’ request, Judge Karas issued an interim order maintaining the status quo while the arbitration proceeded. See Amended Order, No. 12 Civ. 613 (KMK), Caldera Res., Inc. v. Global Gold Mining LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012). Finally, in Global Gold I, Judge Karas issued an order confirming much of the arbitration award and allowing proceedings on damages to go forward before the arbitrator. 941 F. Supp. 2d at 388-89. Given this extensive history, the Court does not recount the facts of the case in detail, but will provide only those necessary to resolve the instant motion.Petitioner Global Gold Mining LLC is a “Delaware limited liability company…and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Global Gold Corporation.” (Pet’rs 56.11). Global Gold Corporation is a Delaware corporation. (Id. at2). Caldera is a Quebec corporation. (Id. at3). “Both companies are in the business of mining for precious metals, especially gold.” Global Gold I, 941 F. Supp. 2d at 378.This case arises from Respondent’s alleged failure to fulfill its obligations under a joint venture agreement (the “JVA”) with Petitioners. (Pet’rs 56.1
4-8). The JVA concerned formation of a jointly-opened company to oversee operations of a gold mine in Armenia, the Marjan gold mining property. Global Gold I, 941 F. Supp. 2d at 379. The parties agreed to resolve their dispute by arbitration pursuant to Section 7 of the JVA. (JVA7). The parties further agreed to bifurcate the arbitration into two parts: first, a determination of liability, and second, a calculation of damages. (Pet’rs 56.111). On March 29, 2012, the arbitrator, retired State Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn, issued a decision that resolved the first issue and resolved the question of disputed assets by awarding the property to Global Gold and some remuneration to Caldera. (Id. at
