In Blue Ridge Investments, LLC v Republic of Argentina, No. 10 Civ. 153 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2012), the Claimant (Blue Ridge) attempted to enforce an ICSID arbitration award against Argentina. In 2005, CMS Gas Transmission Company (CMS) had won an ICSID award of US$133.2 million against Argentina for breach of obligations under the US–Argentina bilateral investment treaty. After Argentina's application to annul the award failed, Blue Ridge purchased CMS' award and sought to enforce it against Argentina in the Southern District of New York. Argentina opposed enforcement with a motion to dismiss based on several objections.

First, Argentina argued that the district court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602, et seq. Under the FSIA, foreign states are immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. Blue Ridge argued that two exceptions to sovereign immunity applied:

Argentina responded by arguing that consent to arbitrate before an ICSID tribunal did not constitute intent to waive immunity in US courts and that confirmation of the award was inapplicable because Argentina did not make an arbitration agreement "with" or "for the benefit" of Blue Ridge.

The district court was unconvinced by Argentina's arguments and held that both FSIA exceptions were applicable. The court found an implied waiver of immunity based on Argentina's status as a contracting state to the ICSID Convention. The court also concluded that the confirmation of an arbitral award applied because Argentina and the United States are both signatories to the ICSID Convention and the pending action was to confirm an ICSID award. As the court determined that there was subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA and that Argentina had not challenged the service of process, the district court also held that it had personal jurisdiction over Argentina.

Argentina then argued that:

Again, the district court was unpersuaded by Argentina's arguments.

As to the authority argument, the district court concluded that the term "party" could include assignees because the term had different meanings in different provisions of the Convention. Since monetary judgments can be transferred under applicable New York State law, the court held that an assignee of an ICSID award has authority to enforce the award in US courts.

With respect to the res judicata argument, the district court emphasised that prior enforcement proceedings of the award had been voluntarily dismissed during settlement discussions. The court held that Blue Ridge's failure to properly reinstitute the case should not be considered a dismissal "with prejudice" because the court's prior order did not explicitly specify the consequences of failure to re-open the action if a settlement was not consummated. Accordingly, the court denied Argentina's motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata.

Finally, on the statute of limitations argument, the district court emphasised that ICSID awards are to be treated as final judgments of state courts rather than as "arbitral awards." As such, the court adopted New York's twenty year statute of limitations for enforcement of monetary judgments, instead of the one year statute of limitation for enforcement of arbitral awards, and thus held that Blue Ridge's enforcement action was not time-barred.

This case illustrates the fundamental US policy of deferential treatment of foreign arbitral awards and underscores the difficulty of objecting to the recognition and enforcement of a valid ICSID arbitral award.