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
Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 20-7116 (D.C. Cir. July 27, 2022)
Court of appeals denied appellant’s petition for panel rehearing of its ruling affirming district court’s post-judgment order, which denied Romania’s motion for relief from satisfaction of the district court’s judgment and ordered Romania to pay outstanding amounts on an ICSID award.
Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, No. 21-CV-09040-PKC (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2022)
Court granted intervenor’s motion to vacate the maritime attachments of two bank accounts in relation to an arbitration award rendered against the Republic of Haiti, finding that the accounts were immune from attachment under the FSIA, because the intervenor, a commercial bank, was wholly owned by the Republic of Haiti. The attachment did not meet the exception to the FSIA for arbitral awards because the attachment applied not to property of Haiti but to property owned by a legally distinct and autonomous commercial bank. Court also denied plaintiff’s request for additional discovery.
245 Park Member LLC v. HNA Group (International) Company Limited, No. 22-CV-05136-JGK (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2022)
Court confirmed a non-domestic arbitral award under the New York Convention finding that although the arbitrator did not permit discovery or hold an evidentiary hearing, she adequately considered submissions such that it was not fundamentally unfair or contrary to the parties’ arbitration agreement.
Molecular Dynamics Ltd. v. Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited, No. 22-CV-04332-PAE (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2022)
Court dissolved preliminary injunction that enjoined defendants from enforcing an arbitral award outside of New York based on a forum selection clause in one of the parties’ agreements. Court found that the doctrine of judicial estoppel would likely bar plaintiff’s claims, because plaintiff had previously asserted in another court that an award in its favor would be enforceable outside of New York.
Tecnicas Reunidas de Talara S.A.C. v. SSK Ingenieria y Construccion S.A.C., No. 21-13776 (11th Cir. July 22, 2022)
Court of appeals affirmed confirmation of an arbitral award under the Panama Convention rejecting petitioner’s argument that the award should be vacated because two of its attorneys withdrew and became employed at the opposing party’s law firm during the arbitration. Court of appeals held that because the petitioner had prior knowledge of this change but waited to object until it received an adverse award, it had waived its right to a public-policy defense.