A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.
-
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.
-
Temsa Ulasim Araclari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. v. CH Bus Sales, LLC, No. 1:22-CV-00492-JPC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2022)09/01/2022
Court granted petitioner’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award under the New York Convention. Court found the agreement was non-domestic and fell within the scope of the New York Convention, because it dealt with a commercial transaction with a Turkish company. Court found that nothing in the record suggested that any of the defenses listed in the New York Convention or in the FAA would preclude confirmation.
-
HDI Global SE v. Phillips 66 Company, No. 1:22-CV-00807-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2022)08/26/2022
Court granted petitioner’s request to confirm arbitration award relating to a claim for repayment, finding that it was a final award because it dealt with a separate and independent claim. Court denied petitioner’s request to confirm a second arbitration award, because it was an intermediate procedural decision and therefore, a partial award.
-
Panajoti Consulting, LLC v. BuyHive USA, Inc., No. 22-10487-GSC-CI (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2022)08/24/2022
Following Sixth Circuit precedent, court determined that the arbitrator must first decide questions of jurisdiction despite a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement being invoked in the action.
-
Chiejina v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 21-2241-RJL (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2022)08/24/2022
Court denied Nigeria’s motion to dismiss action to enforce arbitration award for failure to properly serve, finding there were no issues with service of process and that the arbitration award should be enforced. Plaintiff properly served Nigeria by sending a copy of the summons and complaint and a notice of suit with translation by mail to the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Nigeria.
-
TIG Insurance Company v. Republic of Argentina, No. 18-MC-00129-DLF (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2022)08/23/2022
Court found that Argentina had not impliedly waived its sovereign immunity because transferring assets and liabilities of Caja (a state-owned corporation) and providing that the government would handle legal claims and arbitration was not enough to meet the “subjective intent” standard for a foreign sovereign to waive immunity.
-
In the Matter of the Application of New Pax Martime Ltd., No. 22-MC-197 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2022)08/22/2022
Court granted application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to take discovery in the United States for use in a reasonably contemplated proceeding to enforce an arbitration award before a foreign tribunal.
-
Conocophillips Petrozuata B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:19-CV-0683-CJN (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2022)08/19/2022
Court granted petitioners’ motion for default judgment and confirmed a foreign arbitral award against Venezuela after petitioners effected service, presented satisfactory evidence to the court, and Venezuela failed to enter an appearance.
-
Heavenseven GMBH v. LoveTurner, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-03464-MEMF-SKX (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2022)08/17/2022
Court confirmed a foreign arbitral award directing costs and attorneys’ fees be paid to the prevailing party. The underlying arbitration was only instituted to determine whether the tribunal had jurisdiction. The arbitrator found that it did not have jurisdiction, but nonetheless issued an award for costs and attorneys’ fees. Court found that the arbitrator had authority to determine its own jurisdiction, and thus could issue an award out of that limited proceeding.
-
Trajkovski Invest AB v. I.AM.PLUS, Electronics, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-04246-ODW-JEMx, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2022)08/09/2022
Court denied respondent’s motion for relief from final judgment. Court determined that that a foreign corporation that fails to pay taxes in California forfeits its status as a registered corporation and therefore suspends its right to litigate in the forum. If respondent rectifies its forfeited status, it may bring its claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), alleging that the lower court committed clear error in granting petitioners’ motion to enforce judgment for failure to comply with Article IV of the New York Convention.
-
Iraq Telecom Ltd. v. IBL Bank S.A.L., No. 22-540-CV (2d Cir. August 5, 2022)08/05/2022
Court affirmed the district court’s decision to consider extraordinary circumstances, including the impact of attachment on the Lebanese economy, when deciding whether petitioner established the statutory requirements for attachment in aid of arbitration. However, the district court abused its discretion in reducing the attachment amount in three respects: failing to consider alternative attachment amounts, concluding that the greater culpability of one of the wrongdoers was a reason to reduce the attachment, and applying a “conceivable” rather than “probable” legal standard in assessing petitioner’s probability of success.
-
Republic of Guatemala v. IC Power Asia Development Ltd., No. 1:22-CV-00394-CM (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2022)08/05/2022
Court denied Guatemala’s motion for entry of default judgment because Guatemala failed to properly effect service of process on the defendant foreign corporation under New York Business Corporation Law § 307. Court held that to effect service of process, Guatemala not only had to personally deliver the papers to the New York Secretary of State, but also send copies to defendant by registered mail with return receipt requested to the appropriate address, as defined by § 307.
-
Ortis v. Goya Foods, Inc., No. 19-CV-19003-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2022)08/03/2022
Court denied defendant’s motion for class certification excluding putative class members who signed an arbitration amendment to the underlying agreement. Court found that due to the limited number of remaining putative class members, joinder would be more practicable.
-
Valores Mundiales S.L. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 19-CV-46-FYP-RMM (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2022)08/03/2022
Magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant Venezuela’s motion to set aside a default judgment enforcing an ICSID award as Venezuela proved its default was not willful, but caused by extraordinary political circumstances. Magistrate judge further recommended summary judgement be granted in favor of plaintiffs as Venezuela was not denied due process during ICSID annulment proceedings by Interim President Guaidó’s governments lack of participation.
-
Burley Foods, LLC v. Bluegrass Ingredients, Inc., No. 21-CV-02160-SRN-LIB (D. Minn. Aug. 2, 2022)08/02/2022
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration provision of the agreement between the parties was void and unenforceable under the Minnesota Termination of Sales Representatives Act.
-
Jones Day v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, No. 21-16642 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2022)08/01/2022
Court reversed district court’s order denying Jones Day’s petitions to compel Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, to comply with an arbitrator’s subpoena requiring two Orrick partners to appear at a hearing in an international arbitration conducted pursuant to Chapter 2 of the FAA. Court held that the district court had original jurisdiction to enforce the arbitral summonses because the proceedings related to an arbitration agreement falling under the New York Convention.
-
Warrington v. Rocky Patel Premium Cigars, Inc., No. 22-CV-00077-JES-KCD (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2022)08/01/2022
Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court found that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate by filing a state action, thereby seeking to avail themselves of the litigation machinery instead of arbitration.
-
HBT Bio Corp. v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals, LTD, No. 22-CV-00334-JLR (W.D. Wash. Jul. 29, 2022)07/29/2022
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice in a case alleging “theft of trade secrets” in connection with the development of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Court found that the record provided an insufficient basis for the court to determine personal jurisdiction, so denied the motion and ordered the parties to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
-
Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 20-7116 (D.C. Cir. July 27, 2022)07/27/2022
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)07/27/2022
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)07/25/2022
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)07/22/2022
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)07/22/2022
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.
-
Trividia Health, Incorporated vs. Nipro Corporation, No. 20-CV-08450-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2022)07/21/2022
Court declined to reconsider and reduce prejudgment interest in arbitral award from the New York State statutory rate to the federal rate or the rate chosen by the arbitration panel. Court determined that such relief should only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, and none were present, especially because movant could have made this argument earlier.
-
Terra Towers Corp. and TBS Management, S.A. v. Gelber Schachter & Greenberg, P.A., No. 22-CV-06150-VEC (S.D. Fla. July 18, 2022)07/18/2022
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for remand and granted defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York, finding that the previous removal to this court was proper under the New York Convention and that transfer was warranted because the case had strong ties to S.D.N.Y. such as ongoing related arbitration and litigation in New York.
-
Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. BB Energy USA, LLC, No. 22-20021 (5th Cir. July 14, 2022)07/14/2022
Court reversed and vacated writ of attachment because lower court erroneously determined that defendant, a Haitian government agency, had explicitly waived its sovereign immunity from prejudgment attachment. Regardless of whether a contract contains language waiving sovereign immunity from suit generally, waiver of prejudgment attachment must be express, clear, and unambiguous.
-
Equipav S.A. Pavimentção Engenharia e Comercia Ltda. v. Bertin, No. 22-CV-4594-PGG (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2022)07/14/2022
Court granted permission to serve respondent with petition to confirm arbitration award through an alternative service method via email to respondent’s various counsel. Court found that service via email was not prohibited by any applicable international agreement and did not offend due process. Petitioner reasonably attempted to effectuate service by initiating the process under the Hague Convention, but because this service method would unnecessarily delay the case seven to twelve months, court intervention was warranted and necessary.
-
GBM Global Holding Company Limited v. 91 Individuals Attached to Schedule A, No. 21-CV. 6284-AKH (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022)07/13/2022
Court confirmed a foreign arbitration award, finding there were no enumerated grounds for refusing or deferring recognition or enforcement of the award under the New York Convention, where respondents failed to appear before both the arbitral tribunal and motion to confirm the foreign arbitral award.
-
Fantastic Films International, LLC v. Screen Media Ventures, LLC et al., No. 22-CV-01014-FWS-AGR (C.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2022)07/12/2022
Court granted a motion to compel arbitration in a copyright infringement case. Court found that arbitration provisions in license agreements at issue did not terminate with the expiration of the underlying agreements.
-
Outokumpu Stainless Steel USA, LLC v. Coverteam SAS, No. 17-10944 (11th Cir. July 8, 2022)07/08/2022
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision for a non-signatory to enforce an arbitration agreement where the non-signatory was a defined party covered by the arbitration clause.
-
Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation., No. 19-3159 (L) (2d Cir. July 8, 2022)07/08/2022
Court of appeals held that it was only obligated to afford comity to the parts of the award which the Nigerian court’s judgment previously set aside. The case was remanded to the district court to determine precisely which aspects of the award are enforceable under the Nigerian judgment, and then enter a partial enforcement order based on that determination.
-
The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v. Baldwin, No. 20-CV-00195-CRK (D. Idaho July 1, 2022)07/01/2022
Court denied defendants’ motion to stay further proceedings in the enforcement of an arbitral award pending resolution of three foreign proceedings, concluding that a stay was not warranted under either its inherent power to stay cases or under Article VI of the New York Convention.
-
Hydro Energy 1, S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 21-CV-2463-RJL (D.D.C. June 28, 2022)06/28/2022
Court granted Spain’s motion to stay the proceedings to enforce an arbitral award until a pending ICSID annulment proceeding is concluded based on its inherent power to control the disposition of actions on its docket. Further, the court noted that at least six similarly-situated petitioners have sought to enforce arbitral awards against Spain in the district and each had been stayed. Court denied Spain’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.
-
The Cornfeld Group, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, No. 21-CV-62510-FAM (S.D. Fla. June 27, 2022)06/27/2022
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the action to state court and granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention. Court found it had jurisdiction under the New York Convention, because plaintiff’s bad faith claim was conceivably related to the parties’ insurance relationship and may fall within the arbitration clause. Court found that the provision’s delegation clause saved the question of arbitrability for the arbitrator.
-
Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 20-7116 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2022)06/24/2022
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s post-judgment order denying Romania’s motion for relief from satisfaction of the district court’s judgment, which ordered Romania to pay amounts outstanding under an ICSID award, by paying a less valuable Romanian judgment relating to the same award. Court of appeals also affirmed the grant of petitioners’ motion for civil contempt and sanctions for Romania’s defiance of a post-judgment discovery order.
-
Rachan Reddy v. Rashid Buttar, No. 20-1633, (4th Cir. June 24, 2022)06/24/2022
Court rejected arguments on appeal that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the arbitration award was not enforceable under the New York Convention, lacked personal jurisdiction because defendant was domiciled in New Zealand, and entered summary judgment improperly because there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding arbitration agreement.
-
Reddy v. Buttar, No. 20-1633 (4th Cir. June 24, 2022)06/24/2022
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to enforce arbitration award under the New York Convention. Court of appeals found the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 9 USC § 203, holding along with the Second and Ninth Circuits that a plaintiff’s failure to establish the specific requirements of an enforceable arbitration agreement or award under the New York Convention is a merits question that does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction. It further found that the court had personal jurisdiction over respondent who conceded that he was domiciled in North Carolina when the action was commenced, and affirmed the court’s entry of summary judgment, finding respondent did not present evidence to support his contention that the underlying agreement was a forgery.
-
Salzgitter Mannesmann International (USA) Inc. v. Sun Steel Company LLC, No. 22-CV-00030 (S.D. Tex. June 24, 2022)06/24/2022
Court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss motion to confirm arbitral award, finding it had subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention. Court concluded that the award arose out of a legal relationship with a reasonable relationship to a foreign state as required by 9 USC § 202, because the parties’ contract required petitioner to purchase steel from a Canadian company.
-
Kuehne + Nagel Inc. v. Baker Hughes, No. 21-CV-8470-KPF (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2022)06/23/2022
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay instant action under the FAA. Court found the arbitration agreement was enforceable, that the dispute fell within its scope, and that the issue of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator by incorporation of the ICC and CPR rules. Court found the arbitration provision was mandatory, although the agreement stated that either party “may” refer the dispute to arbitration 30 days after commencing mediation.
-
UAB Skyroad Leasing v. OJSC Tajik Air, The Republic of Tajikistan, No. 21-7015 (D.C. Cir. June 17, 2022)06/17/2022
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s judgment dismissing a petition to enforce an arbitral award for lack of personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Court of appeals found that appellant failed to rebut the presumption of separateness between appellee, an instrumentality, and the Republic of Tajikistan, holding that Tajikistan’s sole ownership of appellee did not establish the level of control required to show that a principal-agent relationship existed.
-
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Novartis AG, No. 22-CV-04162-CM (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2022)06/14/2022
Court denied respondent’s unopposed motion to seal in its entirety—or in the alternative, file a heavily redacted version of—a final arbitration award, except to the extent that the redactions covered proprietary or confidential business information. Court held that when a party seeks confirmation of an arbitration award, the award becomes a judicial document subject to the presumption of public access, pursuant to the First Amendment and common law right to access judicial documents and proceedings.
-
Gebre v. Kyrgyz Republic, No. 20-CV-01795-ABJ (D.D.C. June 14, 2022)06/14/2022
Court granted petitioner’s motion for default judgment and confirmed the arbitral award against the Kyrgyz Republic. Court found that given it had jurisdiction under the FAA, respondent was not immune under the FSIA, petitioner properly served respondent, and none of the grounds for denying recognition of an arbitral award under the New York Convention were applicable.
-
Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC v. Mahalaxmi Continental Limited, No. 22-CV-00781-WSH (W.D. Pa. June 14, 2022)06/14/2022
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining defendants from pursuing and the AAA from further processing defendants’ demand for arbitration. Court found that plaintiff had established more than a reasonable probability of success on the merits that it never agreed to submit to arbitration, that a TRO was necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm, that the balance of harms clearly and strongly weighed in favor of plaintiff, and that granting of a TRO was in the public interest.
-
ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., No. 21-401 (S. Ct. June 13, 2022)06/13/2022
Supreme Court, in a consolidated appeal, reversed the district court’s order in ZF Automotive denying the motion to quash a 28 USC §1782 application and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in AlixPartners that affirmed the district court’s order granting a discovery request. Supreme Court unanimously held that neither the tribunal under the auspices of the German Institution of Arbitration, nor the ad hoc tribunal under the UNCITRAL arbitration rules, fell within the scope of the term “tribunal” in 28 USC §1782(a). Court held that only a governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative body constituted a “foreign or international tribunal,” reasoning that although a “tribunal” need not be a formal court, attached to the modifiers “foreign or international,” the phrase is best understood to refer to an adjudicative body that exercises governmental authority.
-
Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. 21-55537 (9th Cir. June 10, 2022)06/10/2022
Court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s dismissal for lack of statutory standing in a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), in which plaintiff-appellant alleged that defendants engaged in illegal activities to thwart execution of a US district court judgment confirming a foreign arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention. Consistent with the Second and Third Circuits, but disagreeing with the Seventh Circuit’s residency-based test for domestic injuries involving intangible property, court of appeals held that the alleged injuries to a judgment obtained by plaintiff from a US district court in California were domestic injuries to property such that plaintiff had statutory standing under RICO.
-
Oriental Republic of Uruguay v. Italba Corporation, No. 21-CV-24264-MD (S.D. Fla. June 8, 2022)06/08/2022
Court granted in part and denied in part petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which petitioner sought to enforce an arbitration award. Pursuant to the ICSID Convention and its enabling statute, 22 USC § 1650a, the court ordered that the pecuniary obligations in the arbitral award be recognized and entered as judgment. Court denied petitioner’s claim for prejudgment interest, because the arbitral award rejected petitioner’s request for interest on the costs award.
-
Trividia Health Inc. v. Nipro Corporation, No. 20-CV-08450-VEC (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2022)05/31/2022
Court granted in part a motion for an entry of an order awarding attorney’s fees, costs, and interest following the award of a non-domestic arbitration award. Court found that the petitioner was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and that its requests were mostly reasonable but declined to award costs associated with its use of a legal research search engine, which it found was an overhead law firm cost.
-
State of Libya v. Strabag SE, No. 21-7128 (D.C. Cir. May 27, 2022)05/27/2022
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm arbitral award relating to contract disputes arising out of unfished construction projects due to the force majeure declared after the onset of the Libyan Civil War. Court of appeals held the FAA does not provide for modification of arbitration awards that require relitigating the merits.