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.

• 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.

• 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.

• In the Matter of the Arbitration between Energía Costa Azul, S. DE R.L. DE C.V. v. Shell México Gas Natural S. DE R.L. DE C.V., No. 22-CV-06988 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2022)

  09/06/2022

  Court granted motion for ex parte attachment in aid of arbitration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, finding that petitioner had demonstrated that ex parte relief was necessary due to the possibility that respondent, a non-domiciliary entity, would remove or dissipate assets if notice of the request for attachment were given.

• 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.

• Sistem Mühendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret, A.Ş. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, No. 12-CV-4502-ALC-RWL (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2022)

  08/31/2022

  Court issued a second interim sanctions judgment against the Kyrgyz Republic following a repeated and continuing failure to comply with previous orders to pay the plaintiff in accordance with an enforceable arbitration award

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.