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.
Court granted motion for issuance of subpoenas and letters of request and granted in part motion to extend time to complete discovery to determine whether the court has jurisdiction to enforce an arbitral award issued by the Dubai International Arbitration Center.
Court denied request to issue subpoenas under 28 USC § 1782 for deposition testimony and production of documents for use in an appeal to reinstate arbitral awards totaling over $50 billion issued against the Russian Federation in an ongoing proceeding in the Court of Appeal of The Hague. Although the request fulfilled the statute’s mandatory requirements, the court exercised its discretion to deny the application, concluding that the request’s relevance to the appellate proceedings was tenuous and the burden on the witnesses would be substantial. Shearman & Sterling is counsel for petitioners in connection with this case.
Court of appeal affirmed lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment declining to vacate an arbitral award. Court held that, in light of the highly deferential standard of review applicable to arbitral awards, the plaintiff-appellant’s contentions are meritless.
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s attempt to confirm a AAA arbitration award, without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to challenge a final award. Court held that the motion to confirm the arbitration award was premature because defendant had availed itself of the AAA Optional Appellate Rules and the appeal proceedings were ongoing, therefore the award was not final and ripe for confirmation.
Court granted motion to compel arbitration finding that the claims at issue fall squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and that the defendant, as a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, may compel the plaintiff to arbitrate his claims under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.