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 defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint, but could not compel arbitration in another district. The arbitration agreement in question required a party to initiate any dispute in the state of the principal place of business of the non-petitioning party. As defendant was the non-petitioning party, arbitration would be proper in defendant’s home state of Missouri.
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the action. Court held that the arbitration agreement contained a delegation clause and, as plaintiff made no direct challenges to that clause, all disputes concerning the validity of the agreement should be properly decided by the arbitrator.
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found indemnity provision, allowing one party to recover fees regardless of the outcome, was unconscionable and not severable from the arbitration agreement, and therefore refused to enforce the arbitration agreement.
Court denied motion to vacate or modify an arbitral award. Court found arbitral tribunal was owed broad deference and that plaintiff did not meet burden of showing that the tribunal engaged in misconduct that denied him “fundamental fairness.” Thus, plaintiff failed to establish any of the limited grounds for vacating or modifying the award.
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, stayed the action, and denied as moot defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court found that the agreement was supported by adequate consideration under South Carolina state law, and was not unconscionable because the agreement selected JAMS rules which were not one-sided. Thus, court compelled arbitration pursuant to the FAA.