Shearman & Sterling LLP | U.S. International Arbitration Digest | US International Arbitration
U.S. International Arbitration Digest
This links to the home page

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.

  • Al-Qarqani v. Saudi Arabian Oil Company, No. 21-20034 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2021)

    Court of appeals vacated judgment of the district court, finding that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate; and therefore, the case must be dismissed on remand for lack of jurisdiction as the defendant is an instrumentality of a foreign state and is immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

  • Ukraine v. Pao Taftnet, No. 21-MC-00376-JGK-SN (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2021)

    Court affirmed magistrate judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to quash non-party subpoenas regarding post-judgment discovery following Plaintiff’s avoidance of payment of an arbitral award confirmed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Court overruled all five of Plaintiff’s objections, finding in particular that the magistrate judge properly applied precedent regarding a foreign sovereign’s standing to dispute the relevance of non-party subpoenas and did not avoid or discount Ukraine’s interests or treat those interests as equivalent to individual or corporate interests.

  • CPR Management S.A. v. Devon Park Bioventures L.P., Nos. 20-2343 20-2344 (3d Cir. Nov. 22, 2021)

    Court affirmed the confirmation of an arbitration award by the district court.  Court found that the district court properly struck Defendant-appellant’s application for interpleader because it was procedurally not permitted under the FAA as a pleading, not a motion; that the district court properly confirmed the arbitration award because none of the four grounds for vacating an award applied; and that the court properly awarded prejudgment interest because Defendant-appellant’s argument that prejudgment interest should be eliminated failed to meet one of the three grounds for the modification of an arbitration award as the “promotion of justice” alone is insufficient.  Court also admonished Defendant-appellant for prematurely quitting the arbitration.

  • LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova, No. 14-CV-01921-CRC (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2021)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay confirmation proceedings, finding that the Europcar factors did not favor a stay, particularly considering the protracted nature of the proceedings.

  • Andes Petroleum Ecuadro Limited v. Occidental Exploration and Production Company, No. 21-CV-03930-AKH (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, finding that defendant failed to establish fraud, material partiality, denial of fundamental fairness, or that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority.

  • CMB Infrastructure Group IX LP v. Cobra Energy Investment Finance Inc., No. 21-CV-00214-JAD-DJA (D. Nev. Nov. 15, 2021)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) an arbitration agreement existed, (ii) the dispute fell within the scope of such agreement, and (iii) both signatory and nonsignatory parties to the agreement may compel or be compelled to arbitrate the claims in the case.

  • Rohm Semiconductor USA LLC v. Maxpower Semiconductor Inc., No. 21-1709 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2021)

    Court of appeal affirmed decision compelling arbitration and dismissing declaratory judgment action, finding that (i) the underlying agreement was not ambiguous; (ii) the dispute was international; and (iii) the parties intended to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator.

  • ADT, L.L.C. v. Richmond, No. 21-10023 (5th Cir. Nov. 11, 2021)

    Court vacated lower court’s dismissal for want of diversity jurisdiction, holding that between the parties there was a binding agreement to arbitrate. Court remanded the case for the district court to determine if a third-party who might defeat diversity jurisdiction should be joined as indispensable.

  • FMC Corporation v. Syngenta Crop Protection AG, No. 21-CV-00487 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 11, 2021)

    Court granted motion to dismiss ruling in a patent dispute case.  Court held that the arbitration clause in the parties’ collaboration agreement clearly required the parties to submit their claims to binding arbitration.

  • Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 17-CV-02332-APM (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021)

    Court granted motion to enter judgment in favor of petitioners for accrued sanctions.  Court found that by not answering petitioners’ interrogatories within 14 days, respondent had failed to fulfill the conditions that would allow them to avoid imposition of at least some of the accrued sanctions.

  • Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma S.A. v. Kartha Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 21-CV-00129-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2021)

    Court granted motion to amend protective order to aid in a related Swiss arbitration.  Court found that allowing the Swiss arbitration counsel to access and use discovery that had been exchanged by the parties in U.S. litigation would reduce costs for all involved.

  • Hermes of Paris, Inc. v. Swain, No. 20-3451 (2nd Cir. Nov. 8, 2021)

    Court affirmed lower court’s confirmation of arbitration award dismissing respondent-appellant’s claims as untimely.  Court found that limitations defenses were arbitrable under the parties’ arbitration agreement because the presumption of arbitrability was not rebutted by any express language in the contract. Court also upheld an anti-filing injunction given petitioner-appellees history of vexatious and duplicative litigation.

  • In Re Ex Parte Application of Iraq Telecom Limited For An Order To Obtain Discovery, No. 19-MC-00175-RBS (M.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2021)

    Court granted motion in part and denied in part a motion to compel production of documents in a limited discovery for use in a foreign proceeding.  Court held that all of the documents listed in the privilege log, except for three, were not protected by privilege and should be produced.

  • Hawley v. Boysen, No. 20-CV-02562-JWL-TJJ (D. Kan. Nov. 4, 2021)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration in a breach of contract case.  Court found that there was no meeting of the minds on the question of mandatory arbitration and that therefore there was no arbitration agreement to enforce.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. BB Energy USA, LLC, No. 21-20534 (5th Cir. Nov. 4, 2021)

    Court denied motion to stay discovery order in garnishment case involving a sovereign immunity defense.  Instead, court ordered the district court to limit discovery “only to verify allegations of specific fact crucial to an immunity determination.”

  • Jiangsu Beier Decoration Materials Co., Ltd. v. Angle World LLC, No. 2:21-CV-02845-AB (E.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2021)

    Court denied petition to confirm a CIETAC arbitration award.  Court found it could not enforce the award under the New York Convention, because there was not an agreement to arbitrate signed by both parties or shown in an exchange of letters, even though the CEITAC found a valid arbitration agreement under Chinese law and the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods.

  • Nu-X Ventures v. SBL LLC dba Global Cannabinoids, No. 21-CV-0354-GNS (W.D .Ky. October 21, 2021)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a contract dispute regarding the shipment of cannabinoid gummies.  Court found the arbitration clause was validly part of the contract and plaintiff could not rebut the presumption that the arbitration clause was enforceable because the clause mirrored one in another contract signed by plaintiff and plaintiffs’ business was sophisticated enough to have read the arbitration clause despite the fact that it was not conspicuous.

  • Sutton v. DST Systems Inc., No. 21-CV-9052 (W.D. Mo. October 20, 2021)

    Court granted each plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award following AAA arbitration proceedings.  Court found that no special circumstances permitted the court to deny such a motion, considering factors like defendant’s inconsistent litigation and arbitration positions, judicial estoppel, and unfair advantage.

  • C.N. Romtehnica S.A. v. P.W. Arms Inc., No. 21-CV-00953-JCC (W.D. Wash. October 19, 2021)

    Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss a petition to enforce an arbitration award issued by a Romanian arbitrator.  Court found that the petition was not time-barred because petitioner filed its motion within three years of both the date the arbitrator sent the notice of the award and the date petitioner received the award. 

  • Cota v. Art Brand Studios LLC, No. 21-CV-01519-LJL (S.D.N.Y. October 15, 2021)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court found defendant eliminated its ability to arbitrate by allowing the arbitration to terminate after an arbitration panel gave it the option to cover the arbitration costs of both parties or cease the proceedings and it chose the latter.

  • Weinstein v. Katapult Group Inc., No. 21-CV-05175-PJH (N.D. Cal. October 15, 2021)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a contract dispute arising out of an acquisition.  Court found no “hint” of the parties’ intent to arbitrate disputes in the acquisition documents.

  • Vale S.A. v. BSG Resources Limited, No. 19-CV-03619-VSB-RWL (S.D.N.Y. October 15, 2021)

    Court compelled alter ego of defendant to comply with discovery requests in aid of execution of plaintiff’s judgment arising from the Court’s enforcement of a London Court of International Arbitration award.

  • Martinique Properties LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, No. 21-CV-00209-BCB-SMB (D. Neb. October 15, 2021)

    Court held appraisal provision in insurance policy constituted an arbitration agreement under the FAA.  Court also found that complainant failed to sufficiently allege grounds to vacate the insurance award under the New York Convention because complainant failed to allege incapacity, improper notice, or that the award did not accord with the relevant agreement.

  • Global Gaming Philippines, LLC v. Enrique K. Razon, No. 21-CV-02655-LGS-SN (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2021)

    Court overruled defendants’ objections to magistrate judge’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel discovery of documents to support defendants’ anticipated defense against plaintiff’s attempt to enforce arbitration award, finding that discovery should be limited to avoid undermining the twin goals of arbitration: settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation.

  • Cheruvoth v. Seadream Yacht Club Inc., No. 20-14450 (11th Cir. Oct. 6, 2021)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration under the New York Convention.  Court of appeals found written agreements existed between the parties, as the conditions precedent to contract formation were substantially complied with and a copy of the executed agreements was supplied to defendants.

  • Neptune Shipmanagement Services PTE v. Dahiya, No. 20-30776 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm an Indian arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Court of appeals held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the arbitral award, finding that an earlier remand to state court did not preclude the district court from hearing a separate action premised on new factual developments.  Court of appeals also found that the arbitration clause was enforceable and accepted state court’s judgment barring appellant from litigating against other parties.

  • Podgorny v. Ally Finance, No. 21-CV-00288 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2021)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and granted motion to dismiss with leave to amend in a case involving pro se plaintiffs.  Court found that it could not determine whether the disputes were covered by an arbitration agreement until the plaintiffs had filed a complaint with sufficient factual allegations to determine whether arbitration was necessary.

  • Tieszen v. Ebay Inc., No. 21-CV-04002-KES (D.S.D. Sept. 21, 2021)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a product liability suit.  Court found that there was a valid and enforceable arbitration clause in the user agreement consented to by the plaintiff and that the claim fell within its scope.

  • Compania de Inversiones Mercantoles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuaua S.A.B de C.V., No. 15-CV-02120 (D. Colo. Sept 20, 2021)

    Court granted Motion to Compel in part and denied it in part in post-judgment discovery for a party seeking to confirm an arbitral award.  Court held that petitioner was entitled to an order compelling respondent to answer interrogatories but was not entitled leave to serve an unlimited number of additional interrogatories on a rolling basis until respondent complied with the judgment.

  • Absolute Nevada LLC v. Grand Majestic Riverboat Company LLC, No. 21-CV-11479-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2021)

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral awards against respondent in a case arising out of a shipping charter dispute.  Court stayed motion to confirm arbitral award against third party pending outcome of an appeal.

  • Brice v. Plain Green LLC, No. 19-15707 (9th Cir. September 16, 2021)

    Court reversed district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a RICO action and remanded with instructions to stay the case and compel the parties to proceed with arbitration.  Court concluded an agreement delegating to an arbitrator the question of whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable must be upheld unless the delegation provision itself is unenforceable.  Court found that the delegation provision was not an invalid prospective waiver and therefore arbitration could proceed.

  • Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Bonta, No. 20-15291 (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2021)

    Court held that California Government Code § 12953 and Labor Code § 433 were preempted to the extent that they applied to executed arbitration agreements covered by the FAA.  Court also vacated district court’s preliminary injunction, holding that Section § 432.6 was not preempted by the FAA because it applied only in the absence of an agreement to arbitrate and expressly provided for the validity and enforceability of agreements to arbitrate.

  • Synopsys, Inc. v. Avatar Integrated Systems, Inc., No. 20-CV-04151-WHO (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the entire action under the FAA, including a stay of non-arbitrable issues, finding that even though it was not apparent that the FAA mandated a stay of the entire action, the conservation of judicial resources from a discretionary stay of the entire action outweighed any potential harm to plaintiff.

  • Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. et al., No. 16-CV-02547-RM-KMT (D. Colo. Sept. 3, 2021)

    Court denied defendant’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, finding that defendant failed to meet its burden of showing that the court should grant relief.  Additionally, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for contempt, finding that only part of a confirmed arbitration award was violated.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti et al., No. 21-CV-04960-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2021)

    Court granted non-party central bank’s motion to intervene in action seeking a maritime attachment in aid of arbitration against foreign state.  Court vacated the attachment, finding that plaintiff did not rebut the presumption that the central bank’s account was immune from attachment under Section 1611(b)(1) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.  Court additionally granted central bank’s motion to quash subpoena and protective order.

  • Baker Hughes Services International, LLC v. Joshi Technologies International, Inc., No. 20-CV-00626-TCK-SH (N.D. Okla. Sept. 2, 2021)

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that petitioner complied with the requirements of the New York Convention.  Court found that respondent failed to show that the arbitration agreement was invalid or that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

  • Nordic Water Products AB v. Veolia Water Solutions Technologies Support, No. 21-CV-317-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2021)

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration in related cases arising out of a patent dispute. Court found that the issues raised by the plaintiffs were subject to arbitration under the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement. 

  • Top Jet Enterprises Ltd. v. Skyblueocean Ltd. and Jet Midwest Group, LLC., No. 4:21-CV-00096-FJG (W.D. Mo. Aug. 31, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm and enforce an HKIAC arbitral award under the FAA.  Court rejected defendants’ argument that the petition should be denied because plaintiff could have filed a single confirmation proceeding instead of separate proceedings for the merits judgment and the cost judgment.  Court also found no support for defendants’ argument that the tribunal failed to consider the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees or that the amount of the fees was against public policy.

  • ArtiCure Inc. v. Meng No. 19-4067, No. 19-4067 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2021)

    Court considered whether Ohio law permitted defendants to enforce an arbitration clause even though they did not sign the contract.  Court agreed with district court in rejecting defendant’s equitable estoppel argument and one of their agency arguments but remanded for reconsideration of defendants’ second agency claim.

  • Iberoamericana de Hidrocarburos S.A. v. Exterran Corporation, No. 4:21-CV-01840 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2021)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel ICC arbitration and to stay the case pending arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and concluded that the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Cathay Capital Holdings II, LP v. Zheng, No. 3:20-CV-01365-JBA (D. Conn. Aug. 18, 2021)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case.  Court found that the parties intended to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating the UNCITRAL and HKAIC rules into the agreements.  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court, finding the action related to arbitration agreements subject to the New York Convention, which confers subject matter jurisdiction on the court.

  • Koch Minerals SARL v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:17-CV-02559-ZMF (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and confirmed the ICSID Award pursuant to 22 USC § 1650a.  Court concluded that defendant presented no grounds to contest the authenticity of the award nor raised concerns about the award’s finality in light of the annulment proceedings.

  • Lin v. Ant Bicycle Inc., No. 1:21-CV-10510-GAO (D. Mass. August 17, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment in relation to an arbitration award against defendants and ordered defendants to pay the award and to transfer all interests in the company to plaintiffs.

  • Luxshare, Ltd. v. ZF Automotive US, Inc., No. 2:20-MC-51245-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich. Aug. 17, 2021)

    Court denied respondent’s motion to stay the case pending appeal, finding that respondent had not demonstrated any irreparable harm, that respondent had little likelihood of success considering that Sixth Circuit precedent permits discovery under § 1782 for private arbitration, that petitioner could suffer harm if discovery is stayed, and that the public interest weighed against a stay.  Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel discovery under § 1782 and ordered respondent to comply with the subpoenas.

  • Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-01360-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2021)

    Court granted in part and denied in part intervenors’ motion to compel discovery, finding the intervenors were entitled to discovery as to respondent’s assets and relationships in relation to recovering amounts due under a foreign arbitration award but modified intervenors’ requests.  Court granted respondent’s motion for a protective order in part with regard to specific interrogatories and requests for production, which it found to be overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to reveal executable assets.

  • Heirs of Khalid Abu Al-Qarqani, et al v. Chevron Corporation, et al, No. 19-17074 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2021)

    Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a petition to enforce a foreign arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court found that only the five heirs named on the notice of appeal sufficiently appealed the district court’s order such that the Court had jurisdiction and that the Court did have subject matter jurisdiction, but that the district court should have dismissed the petition on the merits.   Court concluded that, while there was a binding agreement to arbitrate between the parties, the heirs could not establish a right to enforce the arbitration clause and, even if they could, by the time they obtained interest in the land, the rights had been assigned to another party thus Chevron’s predecessor was no longer bound by the arbitration agreement.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, No. 18-CV-00409-DWF-TNL (D. Minn. Aug. 12, 2021)

    Court granted Kazakhstan’s consent motion for supplemental authority seeking authority to subpoena Wells Fargo to produce a witness for deposition in aid of a foreign proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court concluded Wells Fargo was not a participant in the foreign proceedings, it may have evidence that would aid in the proceedings that is not likely to be rejected by foreign tribunals, Kazakhstan was not attempting to circumvent foreign tribunals’ procedures, and compliance with the discovery request would not be unduly burdensome.

  • CLMS Management Services Limit, et al v. Amwins Brokerage of Georgia LL, et al, No. 20-35428 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2021)

    Court affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration in an insurance dispute involving U.S. policy-holders and a U.K. insurance company following the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey in 2017.  Court found that the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a Washington law that prohibits the enforcement of arbitration clauses in insurance contracts, does not prohibit enforcement of the New York Convention such that Washington law controls, because the Convention is self-executing and therefore not reverse-preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

  • Cruz v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, No. 21-CV-00809-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal. August 12, 2021)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding defendant did not have standing to enforce the arbitration clause as a third-party beneficiary to a lease.  Court held that the parties clearly chose to include successors or assigns in the arbitration clause but that this did not include defendant.

  • MarkDutchCo 1 B.V., et al v. Zeta Interactive Corp, No. 19-3845 (3rd Cir. Aug. 10, 2021)

    Court affirmed confirmation of an arbitral award in a dispute arising out of an interest purchase agreement between the parties.  Court found that defendant did not meet the “heavy burden” imposed by the FAA and the New York Convention because the parties bargained for an IPA that committed to resolving all disputes, procedural and substantive, before an arbitrator and reaffirmed that commitment when engaging in arbitration.

View All