US International Arbitration

A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.

• Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador, No. 1:19-CV-02943-JMC (D.D.C. Mar. 16, 2023)

  03/16/2023

  Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the ICSID Convention.  Court rejected respondent’s request to set off and stay the award pending resolution of the parties’ tax dispute.  Court agreed with respondent that post-judgment interest should be calculated pursuant to 28 USC § 1961 rather than the ICSID award.

• JLR Global, LLC v. Paypal Holding Co., No. 4:22-CV-00559-ALM (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2023)

  03/15/2023

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court rejected respondents’ arguments that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties and that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause.  Court stayed all litigation in the lawsuit pending arbitration.

• Manuel Alvarez, Sr. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-03343-JS-JMW (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2023)

  03/15/2023

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration involving alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), New York Fair Credit Reporting Act (“NYFCRA”), and New York General Business Law §§ 380 et seq.  Court found that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement, the dispute was encompassed by the arbitration agreement, and the petitioner did not waive its right to pursue arbitration through its conduct in litigation.

• Marilyn Azuz v. Accucom Corporation, d/b/a InfoTracer, No. 1:21-CV-01182 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2023)

  03/15/2023

  Court denied petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA in an action involving alleged violations of Illinois Rights of Publicity Act.  Court rejected petitioner’s arguments that respondent’s agent had actual or apparent authority to enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of the respondent and that, alternatively, respondent was bound by the arbitration agreement through ratification.

• Shansby v. Edrington, USA, Inc., No. 22-CV-06907-JSC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023)

  03/09/2023

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding first that the incorporation of JAMS rules of arbitration into the parties’ arbitration agreement empowered the arbitrator to decide arbitrability and second that plaintiff’s argument that there was no good faith basis that the arbitration agreement governed the parties’ dispute was without merit. 

• Roblox Corp. v. Wowwee Group Limited, No. 22-CV-04476-SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023)

  03/09/2023

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration against non-US residents where the arbitration agreement clearly set out that it was only applicable to US residents.  Court compelled arbitration for the US residents, finding the overall action seeks non-injunctive relief and therefore the injunctive relief exception under the contract was not applicable. 

• Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. v. Galderma Labortories, L.P., No. 4:22-CV_00662-O (N.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2023)

  03/08/2023

  Court granted motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, finding principles of forum non conveniens is the appropriate way to enforce a forum-selection clause included in an arbitration agreement and subject to the New York Convention.

• AALFS Family Partnership v. GSL Holdings, SA de CV, No. 22-2568 (8th Cir. 2023)

  03/06/2023

  Court affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award, having found no evidence of impartiality or misconduct by the arbitrator in refusing to hear evidence material to the controversy. 

• Hawthorne Industrial Products Inc. v. M/V Tac Imola, No. 22-CV-01376-RDB (D. Md. Feb. 16, 2023) 

  02/16/2023

  Court denied without prejudice defendants’ motion to stay litigation in favor of arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found it inequitable to bind plaintiff to an arbitration clause in the booking note, because defendants did not prove it was validly incorporated into the bills of lading.  Court concluded that the question of the arbitration clause’s applicability could be addressed again after the conclusion of discovery.

• 9REN Holding S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 19-CV-018-71-TSC (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2023)

  02/15/2023

  Court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from seeking relief in a pending Luxembourg action, finding the express and primary purpose of the Luxembourg action was to terminate the present action to confirm a foreign arbitral award. 

• Doraleh Container Terminal SA v. Republic of Djibouti, No. 20-02571-TFH (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2023)

  02/15/2023

  Court confirmed two arbitration awards, rejecting defendant’s argument that a court only has subject matter jurisdiction under 9 USC § 207 if the petition is made by a “party to the arbitration” and finding no basis to deny confirmation under the New York Convention. 

• Nextera Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 19-CV-01618-TSC (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2023)

  02/15/2023

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss finding it has jurisdiction under the FSIA and granted plaintiff’s preliminary injunction, finding the express and primary purpose of a pending action in the Netherlands was to terminate the present action to confirm a foreign arbitral award. 

• Phoenix East II Association, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Llyod’s, No. 22-00436-CG-N (S.D. Ala. Feb. 13, 2023)

  02/13/2023

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration finding the arbitration agreement which provided for the application of New York law did not conflict with an Alabama state law that held all insurance contracts executed within the state be governed by Alabama law.

• La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co. Ltd. v. Zhang Lan, No. 21-CV-3071-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2023)

  02/10/2023

  Court confirmed an arbitral award against defendant, finding defendant’s procedural arguments unpersuasive and further finding there was no ground to dismiss on the basis of Article 5 of the New York Convention.  Court adopted the position of the arbitral panel and the Beijing court that the appointment of arbitrators was proper where the failure to comply with the parties’ agreement was due to defendant’s bad faith.

• Silent Gliss Inc. v. Silent Gliss International Ltd., No. 22-CV-00522-EK-MMH (E.D.N.Y. Feb 9, 2023)

  02/09/2023

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) plaintiff failed to allege and substantiate that it was fraudulently induced to enter into agreement to arbitrate; (ii) the parties agreed to arbitrate questions of arbitrability; (iii) defendants did not waive their right to pursue arbitration, and (iv) plaintiff could arbitrate claim against defendants that did not sign the agreement to arbitrate.  Court denied motion to dismiss the case, noting that it will retain jurisdiction and stay the proceedings pending resolution of the arbitration.

• High Hope Zhongtian Corporation v. Sunbird USA Inc, No. 22-CV-07569-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2023) 

  02/09/2023

  Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that (i) the arbitration proceedings fully accorded with the NY Convention; (ii) the arbitral award did not violate public policy; and (iii) there was no other defense to enforcement appearing on the face of the record.

• Hebei Mighty Synthetic Rubber and Plastic Co. Ltd. v. Global Syn-Turf, Inc., No. 21-CV-10674-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Feb 8, 2023)

  02/08/2023

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, treating motion as one for summary judgment.  Court found that (i) petitioner showed that there was no material issue of fact in dispute; (ii) arbitrator acted within the scope of the authority granted by the parties; and (iii) there was more than a colorable justification for the outcome reached.

• Heimburger S.A.S. v. Brands Within Reach LLC, No. 22-CV-06194-JLR (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2023)

  02/06/2023

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, treating motion as one for summary judgment.  Court found that (i) there was no genuine issue of material fact in dispute precluding summary judgment for petitioner; and (ii) there was more than a colorable justification for the arbitrator’s award.

• In Re Application of Alpene Ltd., No. 21-MC-02547-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2022)

  02/03/2023

  Court stayed motion to vacate order granting discovery in aid of foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 USC. § 1782 pending Supreme Court’s decision on whether arbitrations conducted pursuant to bilateral investment treaties qualify as international tribunals under 28 USC. § 1782.

• Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co., Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:22-CV-00170-BAH (D.D.C. Jan. 26, 2023)

  01/26/2023

  Court denied Nigeria’s motion to dismiss rejecting its novel argument that bilateral investment treaties between state actors were inherently non-commercial.

• Telecom Business Solution, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., No. 22-CV_1761-LAK (S.D.N.Y Jan. 18, 2023)

  01/18/2023

  Court denied respondents motion to vacate an arbitration award where respondents could not show the tribunal acted in a manifest disregard for the law when applying New York specific performance law; nor did respondents prove that the arbitrators acted with impartiality to vacate the award.

• Kronlage Family Limited Partnership v. Independent Specialty Insurance Co., No. 22-CV-01013-NJB-MBN (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2023)

  01/18/2023

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims and that application of equitable estoppel was warranted.  Court also granted motion to stay litigation pending arbitration rather than dismissing plaintiff’s claims because defendants did not explain why dismissal was warranted.

• Academy of the Sacred Heart of New Orleans v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 22-CV-04401-LMA-DPC (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2023)

  01/18/2023

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement between the parties was valid and enforceable.  Court also found that equitable estoppel applied, and that plaintiff must arbitrate its claims against all the defendants, domestic and international.

• Smarter Tools Inc. v. Chongqing Senci Import  Export Trade Co. Ltd., No. 21-00724 (2nd. Cir. Jan. 17, 2023)

  01/17/2023

  Court of Appeals affirmed order denying petition to vacate an arbitral award and granting cross petition to confirm such award, finding that the district court did not err in (i) remanding for the arbitrator to issue a reasoned award and (ii) not concluding that the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law.

• 419 Carondelet, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 22-CV-04311-WMV-DPC (E.D. La. Jan. 10, 2023)

  01/10/2023

  Court granted defendants’ motion to reconsider denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in order to prevent manifest injustice.  Court found that although Louisiana law ordinarily prohibits enforcement of arbitration clauses concerning insurance disputes, the Fifth Circuit has held that the New York Convention supersedes state law.  Court determined that the requirements of the New York Convention were met and therefore, it was required to grant defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.

• Companía de Inversiones Mercantiles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua S.A.B. de C.V., No. 21-1196 (10th Cir. Jan. 10, 2023)

  01/10/2023

  Court of appeals found that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vacate the confirmation of an $36 million foreign arbitration award under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) even though the Bolivian courts annulled the award.  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order for respondent to turn over assets located in Mexico to satisfy the award under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 69(g), finding the order did not violate the principles of extraterritoriality and international comity.

• Compania De Inversiones v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, No. 21-01196 (10th Cir. Jan 10, 2023)

  01/10/2023

  Court of appeals affirmed denial of motion to vacate order confirming arbitral award finding, among other things, that (i) district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to vacate its confirmation judgment as US public policy concerns about enforcing Bolivian court orders outweighed comity to those orders; and (ii) defendant’s conduct supported denial of relief under New York Convention Rule 60(b)(5). In addition, Court of appeals affirmed order requiring defendant to turn over assets located in Mexico to satisfy arbitral award, finding that the district court did not err in (i) applying Colorado Rule 69(g) to defendants’ assets held by related third parties abroad; (ii) concluding that the order did not implicate the presumption against extraterritoriality; and (iii) finding that the order did not violate principles of comity.

• Estate of Ke Zhengguang v. Stephany, No. 20-CV-02260-PX (D. Md. Jan. 9, 2023)

  01/09/2023

  Court entered a final judgment awarding all amounts in two foreign arbitration awards, which were enforced under the New York Convention.  Applying the “breach day rule,” court used the date of the award to calculate the exchange rate for pre-award interest and attorneys’ fees and costs.  Court declined to award interest for the period between the arbitration award and the final judgment, because the award was silent on the point and the tribunal declined to expressly include prejudgment interest when the petitioner requested clarification post-award.

• APG Worldwide Ltd v. Passfeed Inc., No. 1:22-CV-03078-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2022)

  12/29/2022

  Court granted motions to compel arbitration and to stay litigation action pending arbitration, finding there was no genuine dispute between the parties regarding either motion.

• Hayday Farms Inc. v. Feedx Holdings Inc., No. 21-55650 (9th. Cir. Dec. 19, 2022)

  12/19/2022

  Court of appeals affirmed in part, and reversed in part, district court’s order confirming in part an arbitration award, finding, among other things, that (i) there was no complete diversity of citizenship; (ii) the parties’ failure to assert federal question jurisdiction did not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction; and (iii) the award did not exhibit a manifest disregard of law or reflected a completely irrational interpretation of the parties’ agreements.

• In Re Application of Webuild S.P.A. and Sacyr S.A., No. 22-MC-00140-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022)

  12/19/2022

  Court granted motions to vacate order granting ex parte application for discovery pursuant to 28 USC. § 1782 and quash subpoena, finding that petitioner failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of 28 USC. § 1782 because ICSID is not a foreign or international tribunal within the meaning of the statute.

• The Federal Republic of Nigeria v. VR Advisory Services, Ltd., No. 21-MC-00007-JGK-VF (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2022)

  12/12/2022

  Court ordered respondents to produce documents from a shareholder arbitration pursuant to 28 USC § 1782, finding that petitioner had demonstrated the documents are relevant to the issue of the fraudulent arbitration award and that petitioner was not required to exhaust opportunities for discovery before the foreign tribunal.

• Valores Mundiales, S.L. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 19-CV-00046-FYP-RMM (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2022)

  12/07/2022

  Court recommended set aside of a default judgment given findings that Venezuela’s default was not willful, the plaintiff would not be prejudiced, Venezuela alleged a meritorious defense, and Venezuela is a foreign sovereign which has indicated its willingness to respond.  Court further recommended plaintiff’s summary judgment motion be granted, as the federal court is to enforce ICSID awards in the same manner it would state court final judgments.

• America Steel Trade Corporation v. Metalhouse, LLC, No. 6:22-CV-00915-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2022)

  12/07/2022

  Court found that default judgment is proper where defendant was properly served at its principal place of business and defendant failed to show any reason under Article V of the NY Convention that could overcome the presumption of confirmation.

• Canobinoti, LLC v. Woods, No. 20-CV-25081-MGC (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2022)

  12/07/2022

  Court found a provision designating the International Arbitration Center as the arbitral forum was not integral to the agreement as it does not “pervade” the agreement.  Accordingly, the court recommends the appointment of a substitute arbitrator pursuant to § 5 of the FAA.

• Gui Cai v. CMB Export LLC, No. 22-CV-02025-MWF-JPRx (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2022)

  12/05/2022

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the scope of the arbitration agreement between the parties did not encompass the dispute before the court.

• Samsung Electronics Latinoamerica (Zona Libre), S.A. v. VA Technosolutions and Services, LLC., No. 22-CV-21341-MB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2022)

  11/30/2022

  Court granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and modification of the order setting civil trial date.  Court concluded that the action, relating to enforcement of an international arbitration award under the Inter-American Convention, was subject to summary proceedings and cancelled the trial date.

• Llagas v. Sealift Holdings Inc., No. 17-CV-00472-JDC-KK (W.D. La. November 8, 2022)

  11/08/2022

  Court granted motion to recognize and enforce arbitral award, finding that (i) plaintiff contractually agreed to resolve all disputes, including United States statutory claims, in arbitration in the Philippines; (ii) plaintiff was not denied a forum and opportunity to raise his claims; and (iii) it was not contrary to public policy for the court to recognize and enforce defendants’ arbitral award.

• Haarslev Holding, S.A.R.L. v. Claus Oestergaard Nielsen, No. 4:19-CV_00343-BCW (W.D. Mo. Nov. 4, 2022)

  11/04/2022

  Court confirmed foreign arbitral award finding defendant did not meet its burden in showing that a potentially unlimited non-compete clause violated Missouri public policy. 

• Hawaiian Host, Inc. v. Citadel Pacific Ltd., No. 22-CV-00077-JMS-RT (D. Haw. Oct. 31, 2022)

  11/03/2022

  Court granted motion to confirm non-domestic arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court found that none of the grounds in Article V of the New York Convention applied for refusal to recognize or enforce the award.  Court also denied respondent’s cross-motion to vacate under the FAA, finding that the award was not procured by fraud or in manifest disregard of the law.

• In re Application of Alpene, Ltd., No. 21-MC-02547-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2022)

  11/03/2022

  Court granted respondent’s motion to vacate and quash petitioner’s document and deposition subpoenas issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for use in an ICSID arbitration.  Using the Supreme Court’s reasoning from AlixPartners, Court found that the ICSID arbitration panel did not qualify as a “foreign or international tribunal” under 28 USC § 1782, because there was insufficient evidence that the treaty parties at issue indicated an intent to imbue the ICSID arbitration panel with governmental authority.

• Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hu Qin, No. 21-Civ.-09221-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28. 2022)

  10/28/2022

  Court granted a motion to dissolve an automatic stay of proceedings to enforce the court’s judgment which confirmed a foreign arbitral award.  Court found respondent’s questionable asset transfers and failure to participate in litigation created a well-founded risk that respondent was concealing or will conceal assets to avoid collection.

• Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Orinoco, C.A., No. 20-4248 (2d Cir. Oct.3, 2022)

  10/03/2022

  Court of appeals found that a party is not required to serve a summons in order to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the N.Y. Convention.  Court of appeals further found that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to petitioner, determining that respondent did not act without justification in refusing to abide by the arbitrator’s decision.

• Green Renewable Organic and Water Holdings, LLC v. Bloomfield Investments, LLC, No. 21-CV-07181-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2022)

  09/22/2022

  Court stayed decision on the motions to confirm two LCIA arbitration awards until the conclusion of the parallel English set-aside proceedings, finding that the Europcar factors supported granting an Article VI stay under the New York Convention.  It also stayed the separate litigation proceedings requesting a declaratory judgment that claimants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the LCIA.

• Global Industrial Investment Limited, v. 1955 Capital Fund I GP LLC, No. 4:21-CV-08924-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2022)

  09/21/2022

  Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding respondents waived any argument that the underlying arbitration was barred under res judicata and that the arbitrator did not exceed its authority in dissolving respondents’ funds where the arbitration clause to the parties’ agreement permitted such action.

• Sprint Corporation v. Shichinin, 3:21-CV_02308-N (N.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2022)

  09/20/2022

  Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award under 9 USC § 10(a)(2) and (4) as defendant failed to show that arbitrators were evidently partial or exceeded their authority.

• Arcelormittal North America Holdings LLC v. Essar Global Fund Limited, 1:21-CIV-06975-KPG (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2022)

  09/19/2022

  Court denied motion to dismiss plaintiff’s case for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.  Court determined that (1) forum non conveniens should not apply as substantial deference should be given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum and (2) principles of international comity did not warrant dismissal without “exceptional circumstances.”

• The Federal Republic of Nigeria v. VR Advisory Services, Ltd., No. 21-MC-00007-JGK-VF (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2022)

  09/14/2022

  Court granted the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s request for discovery for use in an upcoming fraud trial before the English High Court of Justice in London to set aside a $10 billion arbitration award pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  Court found that petitioner’s application satisfied the mandatory and discretionary elements of the statute.  It further held that res judicata did not bar the application, finding that nothing prevents petitioner from filing two separate applications to obtain discovery for use in separate foreign proceedings.

• The University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo, LLC, No. 21-1558 (1st Cir. Sept. 13, 2022)

  09/13/2022

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of the arbitrator’s liability judgment against appellants pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court of appeals found that appellee’s petition for confirmation of the arbitration awards at issue was not time-barred, ruling that the three-year limitations period in 9 USC § 207 only began to run on the issuance of the final arbitral award and not on the issuance of the interim awards.

• Dominicana Renovables, S.L. v. The Dominican Republic, No. 21-CV-21796-BB (S.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2022)

  09/09/2022

  Court enforced judgment confirming arbitration award against the Dominican Republic.  Court, however, declined to “order[] execution to issue for this Final Judgment,” as 28 USC § 1610(c) prohibits a court from ordering execution against the property of a foreign state until a reasonable period of time has elapsed following entry of judgment.