LOS ANGELES – A California judge has issued an order allowing airplane manufacturer Boeing to receive nearly $3 million in attorneys’ fees stemming from a breach of contract case.
Judge André Birotte Jr. of the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California ruled in favor of the motion Aug. 1, allowing Boeing to be reimbursed for $2.8 million in fees incurred throughout the duration of the case.
The motion stems from a case in which the airplane manufacturer sued defendants KB and Po Yuzhnoye and Mashinostroitelny Zavod for their alleged breach of a creation agreement involving Energia, totaling more than $112 million dollars. The original complaint states that the company reneged on a loan guarantee.
In 2016, the court found in favor of Boeing, who eventually recovered nearly all of the $112 owed to it, as well as other costs and damages totaling totally more than $157 million.
According to the Aug. 1 ruling, the defendants will pay 40 percent of Boeing’s attorneys’ fees.
“Based on its experience with the parties and this case, the very substantial amount of work that Yuzhnoye and Energia’s often identical or joint litigation strategies required from Boeing, and the relevant provisions of Swedish law, the court finds it reasonable for Yuzhnoye to pay 40 percent of Boeing’s attorneys’ fees for expenses related to the breach of the Creation Agreement that were jointly attributable to Yuzhnoye and Energia,” the ruling stated.
In addition to the creating agreement made by both companies, Boeing and the defendants also entered into a nearly identical guaranty and security agreement, further complicating the case.
“Boeing’s actual request categorized all of its incurred attorneys’ fees as would be required under Swedish law, regardless of whether the work was related to the creation agreement or the guaranty and security agreement. By treating the agreements the same Boeing was implicitly suggesting that Swedish law is sufficiently similar to English law on the issue of settling a defendant,” the ruling states.
According to court documents, Yuzhnoye waived any objected questioning the differences between the two laws.