Abu Dhabi fund challenges Citi victory in $4 billion arbitration
By Nate Raymond | November 9, 2012 10:42 AM EST
A lawyer for Abu Dhabi Investment Authority urged a U.S. judge on Thursday to overturn an arbitration panel's ruling favoring Citigroup Inc
The Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund last year lost the arbitration case, which sought $4 billion in damages from what it said were the fraudulent representations by Citi leading up to the deal. At a hearing in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, a lawyer for the fund said the arbitrators applied the wrong law to come to its decision.
"They manifestly disregarded the principles," David Elsberg, a lawyer for the ADIA, said Thursday.
U.S. District Judge George Daniels repeatedly pressed Elsberg on how the arbitrators used the wrong legal analysis or whether it would have made any difference.
"You can't simply say they gave them credit for 10 things and us for eight, and so that's a manifest disregard of the law," he said.
The ADIA bought into Citigroup in November 2007, as the bank moved to boost its balance sheet following billions of dollars in writedowns from subprime mortgage investments.
Under the deal, Citi bonds bought by ADIA would convert to common stock in 2010 and 2011 at prices between $31.83 to $37.24 between March 2010 and September 2011.
But in December 2009, ADIA began arbitration, accusing Citi of "grossly misstating" the bank's financial condition, according to court papers. ADIA sought to rescind the investment or receive $4 billion in damages.
Shares in Citi the day it disclosed the arbitration in 2009 had closed at $3.56. They closed on Thursday much higher, at $36 a share, down 0.14 percent on the day.
In October 2011, a three-arbitrator panel of the International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association issued an award finding ADIA had failed to establish its claim.
ADIA went to court in January 2012 seeking to vacate the award. The fund argues that the arbitration tribunal incorrectly applied New York law to its claims of fraud rather than those of Abu Dhabi, which doesn't require as much proof.
Elsberg said applying the wrong law to the case was equivalent to a baseball umpire using the wrong rule book.
"Because of the choice of law, it was judged against the wrong standard," Elsberg said.
But Citigroup counsel Leslie Fagen said the panel had laid out all the factors for why it would follow New York law instead.
"They went through everything," he said. "They didn't disregard anything."
Citigroup in court papers has also argued the court should confirm the award.
(Reporting by Nate Raymond; Editing by M.D. Golan)
Most Popular Slideshows
- From Fat To Fit: Celebrities Who Were Overweight Before They Became The Beauties That They Are
- Kendall Jenner Could Be Next Victoria's Secret Angel [PHOTOS]
- Pope Francis: World War III Has Started On Piecemeal
- Champions League Results: Barcelona Barely Escapes With A Win, Chelsea Fails To Hold On To The Lead [PHOTOS]
Join the Conversation
- Tourre on stand says email in SEC case 'not accurate'
- Syrian authorities blocking access to needy in Homs - Red Cross
- Faith in European Union at low ebb, EU poll says
- Former UBS banker gets 18 months, $1 million fine, for muni bid-rigging scheme
- U.S. judge halts challenges to Detroit's bankruptcy bid
- Google Nexus 6 Release Date on Q4 2014 Confirmed by T-Mobile Featuring Wi-Fi Calling
- 2 Reasons Nexus 6 Release Date is Worth the Wait: Android L Data Encryption & Material Design
- Samsung Galaxy Note 4 vs. BlackBerry Passport — Specifications, Features, Release Date And Price Showdown
- 3 Signs Apple iPhone 6 Could be in Short Supply Following its Sept 19 Release Date
- Australia Actively Rallying Support For International Coalition Against ISIS
- iOS 8 Jailbreak Release Update: Pangu Devs Will Outrace Evad3rs in Rollout of iPhone 6, iPad Unlocker
- Micromax Canvas A1 Vs Spice Dream Uno Vs Karbonn Sparkle V: A Choice On Which Android Is The Best