Investors largely expected the FOMC to cut rates by a quarter point.The Fedread more
The interest on excess reserves now stands at 1.8%, a 30 basis point cut compared with the 25 basis point reduction for the benchmark funds rate.The Fedread more
The decision to cut rates followed a monthslong pressure campaign by Trump, who often criticized Chairman Jerome Powell by name as he called for lower interest rates.Politicsread more
Powell said on Wednesday that the Fed may have to resume regular balance sheet growth to help ease liquidity markets.The Fedread more
Stocks fell on Wednesday after a divided Federal Reserve failed to signal easier monetary policy later this year, disappointing traders.US Marketsread more
Amazon is launching a new feature that allows presidential candidates to receive campaign contributions through the Alexa voice assistant.Technologyread more
The woman says the abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, a former friend of Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, began when she was just age 14 or younger.Politicsread more
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell pledged that the central bank would engage in a "sequence" of interest rate cuts if conditions warrant, but he doesn't see that as...The Fedread more
The Federal Reserve cut rates Wednesday by 25 basis points to a range of 1.75% to 2.00%.The Fedread more
For consumers, lower rates do mean cheaper loans, which can impact your mortgage, home equity loan, credit card, student loan tab and car payment. n the flip side, you'll earn...Personal Financeread more
-U.S. judge@ (Adds Exxon statement)
NEW YORK, Sept 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Wednesday rejected Exxon Mobil Corp's and Royal Dutch Shell Plc's effort to revive a $1.8 billion arbitration award against Nigeria's state-run oil company, which stemmed from a dispute over a 1993 contract to extract oil near the African country's coastline.
U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan cited public policy and due process considerations in deciding not to enforce the October 2011 award against Nigerian National Petroleum Corp (NNPC), which was subsequently set aside by courts in Nigeria.
"While this court may have inherent authority to fashion appropriate relief in certain circumstances, exercising that authority to create a $1.8 billion judgment is a bridge too far," Pauley wrote in a 50-page decision.
The companies said last November that the award had grown to $2.67 billion, including interest.
Exxon spokesman Todd Spitler said the Irving, Texas-based company disagreed with the decision and was evaluating its next steps. Shell and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
"NNPC is very pleased with the decision, and was always confident that there was no basis for a U.S. court to confirm the award," its lawyer Cecilia Moss said in an interview.
According to court papers, the 1993 contract anticipated that Exxon and Shell affiliates would invest billions of dollars to extract oil from the Erha field, about 60 miles (97 km) off Nigeria's coast, and share profits with NNPC.
But the affiliates, Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Ltd and Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Co Ltd, accused NNPC of unilaterally "lifting" more oil than was contractually allowed, at the behest of Nigeria's government, depriving them of billions of dollars of oil.
Pauley said Exxon and Shell still have "multiple appeals pending" in Nigeria, and rejected their argument that it might be difficult to collect there.
Exxon and Shell "executed a contract in Nigeria with another Nigerian corporation containing an arbitration clause requiring any arbitration to be held in Nigeria under Nigerian law, and it then sought to confirm the award in Nigeria," Pauley wrote. " cannot now reasonably complain that efforts to collect will be frustrated in Nigeria."
In an Aug. 7 regulatory filing, Exxon said it did not expect the case to materially affect its operations or financial condition.
The case is Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Ltd et al v Nigerian National Petroleum Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-08445. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York Editing by Matthew Lewis and Richard Chang)