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
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Oceltip Aviation 1 Pty Ltd., No. 20-11080 (11th Cir. Apr. 18, 2022)
Court of appeals affirmed district court decision to confirm AAA arbitration award in a contract dispute involving the sale of a jet aircraft. Court of appeals agreed with the district court’s finding that the FAA review standards, rather than Georgia state law, applied, and that the district court had correctly confirmed the award.
Spliethoff Transport B.V. v. Phyto-Charter Inc., No. 21-1359 (2d Cir. Apr. 15, 2022)
Court of appeals dismissed case for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the district court’s order was not a final appealable decision within the meaning of the FAA because it had deferred a decision on petitioner’s request that the court appoint an arbitrator in the event the parties were unable to agree.
PT Rahajasa Media Internet v. Telecommunication and Informatics Financing Provider and Management Centre, No. 1:20-CV-11035-PGG-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2022)
Court denied petitioner’s application to confirm a foreign arbitration award against an agency of the Republic of Indonesia under the New York Convention. Court found that petitioner failed to timely file the application within the three-year statute of limitations in 9 U.S.C. § 207. It further found that petitioner had not shown that it was reasonably diligent in pursuing its rights or that extraordinary circumstances prevented it from filing the application in a timely manner to equitably toll the limitations period.
Iraq Telecom Limited v. IBL Bank S.A.L., No. 21-CV-10940-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022)
Court confirmed, in part, the order granting $100 million attachment in aid of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7502(c) to the extent of $3 million and granted cross-motion to vacate such order as to the remaining $97 million. Court found that petitioner showed that it was likely to succeed on request to confirm $3 million arbitral award but failed to show that it was likely to receive arbitral award of $97 million in separate arbitration.
Skymark Properties Corporation, Inc. v. Katebian, No. 2:20-CV-12372-SFC-DRG (E.D. Mich. March 14, 2022)
Court issued a report and recommendation denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and grant in part and deny as moot in part defendants’ motions to dismiss in a RICO case. Court found that because the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in California, the proper course of action was to dismiss claims covered by the agreement without prejudice. Court found that plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently plead causation for the remaining claims.