Shearman & Sterling LLP | U.S. International Arbitration Digest

Welcome to the Shearman & Sterling US International Arbitration Digest

Shearman & Sterling’s US International Arbitration Digest (US IA Digest) provides a centralized resource for newly released decisions issued by US courts. The US IA Digest collects in one place important decisions on US international arbitration case law issued since January 1, 2016, compiled and organized into categories that are most relevant and useful to practitioners and other interested parties. The Digest will be updated on a rolling basis as new decisions are issued.

Newly Released Decisions

Peterson v. Islamic Republic, No. 1:01-CV-02094-RCL (D.D.C. Dec. 6, 2016)

Court denied counter motion to compel arbitration, holding plaintiffs did not agree to, or were otherwise bound by, the relevant arbitration agreement, and there are no disputes or petitions before the court which could justify an order to compel arbitration under 9 USC §§ 3 and 4.


Ascendant Renewable Energy Corporation v. Soaring Wind Energy, LLC, et al, No. 3:16-CV-750-K (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016)

Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction movant’s petition to vacate arbitration award and dismissed the case. Court held there is no longer a case or controversy to be decided by it because respondents had issued a covenant making it “absolutely clear” that they will not seek to confirm the arbitration award against movant.


Milan Express Co., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc., No. 16-5270 (6th Cir. Dec. 2, 2016)

Court declined to exercise appellate jurisdiction and decide the validity of the arbitration award, holding that the district court’s non-decision on the motion to vacate the arbitration award was not an implied denial of the motion.  Court held that the district court’s silence was consistent with the rationale for its forum-non-conveniens dismissal and the parties’ express agreement to litigate the validity of the award in the courts of Nebraska.  This was also consistent with the FAA, which provides that judgment on the validity of an arbitration award shall be sought in the court specified by the parties in their agreement.


Zambrana v. Pressler and Pressler, LLP, No. 1:16-CV-02907-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2016)

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding a valid arbitration agreement existed in plaintiff’s cardholder agreement.  Court also held that defendants adequately established plaintiff’s credit card account was assigned to them, and thus the defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement.


Trs. for the Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Premier Bridging & Scaffolding Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-04921-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2016)

Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment to confirm and enforce an arbitration award.  Court found that the arbitrator’s decision could be clearly inferred from the facts of the case, and as such, confirmed the award.