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.

  • Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Oceltip Aviation 1 Pty Ltd., No. 20-11080 (11th Cir. Apr. 18, 2022)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court decision to confirm AAA arbitration award in a contract dispute involving the sale of a jet aircraft.  Court of appeals agreed with the district court’s finding that the FAA review standards, rather than Georgia state law, applied, and that the district court had correctly confirmed the award.

  • Spliethoff Transport B.V. v. Phyto-Charter Inc., No. 21-1359 (2d Cir. Apr. 15, 2022)

    Court of appeals dismissed case for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the district court’s order was not a final appealable decision within the meaning of the FAA because it had deferred a decision on petitioner’s request that the court appoint an arbitrator in the event the parties were unable to agree. 

  • PT Rahajasa Media Internet v. Telecommunication and Informatics Financing Provider and Management Centre, No. 1:20-CV-11035-PGG-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2022)

    Court denied petitioner’s application to confirm a foreign arbitration award against an agency of the Republic of Indonesia under the New York Convention.  Court found that petitioner failed to timely file the application within the three-year statute of limitations in 9 U.S.C. § 207.  It further found that petitioner had not shown that it was reasonably diligent in pursuing its rights or that extraordinary circumstances prevented it from filing the application in a timely manner to equitably toll the limitations period.

  • Iraq Telecom Limited v. IBL Bank S.A.L., No. 21-CV-10940-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022)

    Court confirmed, in part, the order granting $100 million attachment in aid of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7502(c) to the extent of $3 million and granted cross-motion to vacate such order as to the remaining $97 million.  Court found that petitioner showed that it was likely to succeed on request to confirm $3 million arbitral award but failed to show that it was likely to receive arbitral award of $97 million in separate arbitration.

  • Skymark Properties Corporation, Inc. v. Katebian, No. 2:20-CV-12372-SFC-DRG (E.D. Mich. March 14, 2022)

    Court issued a report and recommendation denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and grant in part and deny as moot in part defendants’ motions to dismiss in a RICO case.  Court found that because the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in California, the proper course of action was to dismiss claims covered by the agreement without prejudice.  Court found that plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently plead causation for the remaining claims.

  • Process and Industrial Developments Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 21-7003 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 11, 2022)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to deny motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitral award against foreign sovereign.  Court of appeals found that (i) the arbitration exception to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applied, and (ii) a foreign court’s order ostensibly setting aside an arbitral award has no bearing on the district court’s jurisdiction and is instead an affirmative defense properly suited for consideration at the merits stage.

  • Tethyan Copper Company PTY Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, No. 19-CV-02424-TNM (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2022)

    Court denied motion for a stay of enforcement of ICSID award, finding that a stay would not benefit judicial economy, denying a stay would not irreparably harm defendant, and granting a stay would prejudice plaintiff.  Court also denied motion to dismiss petition to enforce ICSID award, finding that it had jurisdiction and the arbitral award merited full faith and credit.

  • Full Moon Logistics v. Bald Eagle Logistics, Inc., No. 8:21-CV-02695-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2022)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties and plaintiffs did not demonstrate procedural and substantive unconscionability.

  • The Branch of Citibank, N.A. Established in the Republic of Argentina v. De Nevares, No. 1:21-CV-06125-VM (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2022)

    Court found that a foreign branch of a banking entity had standing and capacity to bring an action under Rule 12(b)(1) and 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Court granted plaintiff’s request to compel arbitration and issued a preliminary injunction on defendant’s claim in an Argentine court.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Chapman, No. 1:21-CV-03507-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2022)

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court as to claims by Kazakhstan, but denied the motion as to the remaining plaintiff, finding that the subject matter jurisdiction clause under 9 USC § 203 and remand provision under 9 USC § 205 must be read separately.  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention as to the remaining plaintiff, finding that an agreement had been formed between the parties and the agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. 

  • Bartlit Beck LLP v. Okada, No. 21-1633 (7th Cir. Feb. 8, 2022)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm arbitration award.  Court of appeals declined to decide whether both Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention and § 10 of the FAA applied to defendant’s application to vacate the award, finding that there appeared to be no conflict between the provisions for purposes of the case.  Court of appeals held that defendant was not denied a fundamentally fair proceeding, particularly as he refused to participate in the arbitration.

  • CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd v. Air India Ltd., No. 1:21-CV-09155-PGG (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2022)

    Court stayed proceedings until pending motions to dismiss in related cases in the District Court for the District of Columbia are resolved.  Court, assuming defendant was the alter ego of the Republic of India for the purposes of confirmation of a foreign arbitration award, found the issues raised in the Republic of India’s motions to dismiss in the District of Columbia actions substantially overlap with the issues presented to the Court in connection with its subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

  • The Federal Republic of Nigeria v. VR Advisory Services Ltd., No. 20-3909 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2022)

    Court of appeals vacated and remanded district court’s judgment in which it had vacated its previous ex parte grant of Nigeria’s application to compel discovery for use in a foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  Court of appeals found the district court erred in concluding that the US-Nigeria MLAT restricted Nigeria’s use of other lawful means to access evidence in the US for use in criminal matters.

  • Pao Tatneft v. Ukraine, No. 1:17-CV-00582-CKK (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2022)

    Court denied respondent’s request for an abeyance or extension of time to produce discovery in relation to petitioner’s interrogatories and document requests in aid of execution of arbitration award and deferred ruling on the motion for protective order until briefing was complete.  Court ruled that due to security concerns petitioner was to treat all produced information as for outside counsel’s eyes only.

  • AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG v. Pharmaessentia Corporation, No. 1:20-CV-12066-MLW (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2022)

    Court denied plaintiff’s request for sanctions in a case involving a discovery dispute over jurisdiction in relation to enforcement of an arbitration award.  Court found that defendant’s stipulation to jurisdiction and payment of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees relating to the motion for sanctions was sufficient remedy for defendant’s earlier violation.

  • Thyssenkrupp Materials, LLC v. Triumph Group, Inc., No. 4:20-CV-11087-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 26, 2022)

    Court denied defendants’ motion to vacate arbitration award pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that defendants had raised reasonable questions about the correctness of the arbitration award but had not met their burden of showing that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, No. 21-CV-06704-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2022)

    Court granted petition to recognize, confirm, and enforce partial final arbitration award, finding that (i) the issue of arbitrability could not be relitigated; (ii) respondents failed to show lack of due process in the arbitration; (iii) respondents failed to show that the composition of the arbitration panel was not in accordance with the parties’ agreements; and (iv) enforcement of the award would not violate public policy.

  • Richard Green v. Dinh Hoang Phuong, No. 21-35146 (9th. Cir. Jan 26, 2022)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision dismissing action to enforce arbitration award because the action was barred under the Younger abstention doctrine, and even assuming that the New York Convention applied, it did not require that said action be brought in federal court.

  • Leo Middle East FZE v. Zhe Zhang, No. 21-CV-03985-CRB (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2022)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs and cross-defendants waived their right to arbitration via participation in litigation, and to the extent parallel proceedings might result in inconsistent rulings, plaintiffs and cross defendants created such problem by waiving their right to arbitrate.

  • Iraq Telecom Limited v. IBL Bank S.A.L, No. 21-CV-10940-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2022)

    Court granted petitioner’s renewed motion for an ex parte order of attachment in aid of enforcement of a foreign arbitration award in the amount of $100 million.  Court found that since its previous motion, petitioner had satisfied the grounds for an ex parte attachment pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rule § 1602(1) and § 7502, including by showing that without such attachment, an arbitration award may be rendered ineffectual.

  • Brands United Ltd. v. Universal Studios Licensing LLC, No. 2:21-CV-08764-SB-KS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2022)

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award under the FAA, rejecting petitioner’s arguments that the award was procured by undue means.  Court found nothing improper about ex parte communications between the arbitrator and a party, when petitioner declined to participate in the arbitration, and concluded that the service requirements of the Hague Convention did not apply as the petitioner agreed to service by email and mail in its agreement to arbitration.

  • China Railway No. 10 Engineering Group Co. Ltd. v. Triorient, LLC, No. 1:21-CV-05941-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2022)

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Respondent did not appear or participate in confirmation proceedings, but court found that the award was valid and well-reasoned, and therefore should be confirmed.  Court denied petitioner’s application for legal fees and costs without prejudice, as petitioner did not request a specific amount of attorney’s fees or submit any records justifying its costs.

  • Binh v. King & Spalding LLP, No. 4:21-CV-02234 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2022)

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration under the New York Convention, finding that the dispute fell within the scope of the parties’ agreement, and that because the agreement had a broad delegation clause, the issue of arbitrability should be resolved by arbitration.

  • Trajkovski Invest AB v. I.Am.Plus Electronics, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-04246-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2021)

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to enforce a foreign arbitral award.  Court found it had subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention and that petitioners sufficiently applied for recognition of the award under the New York Convention by ultimately filing the original award and agreement in their unredacted forms.

  • Pao Tatneft v. Ukraine, No. 20-7091 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 28, 2021)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to enforce an arbitral award against Ukraine, rejecting arguments that the court should have declined to enforce the award under the New York Convention and dismissed the petition on the basis of forum non conveniens.  Court of appeals found Ukraine failed to timely raise one of its arguments, that the district court did not exceed its authority in modifying the final award because the award was not internally inconsistent, and that none of the exceptions to enforcement applied.  Court of appeals also confirmed that forum non conveniens is unavailable in proceedings to confirm a foreign arbitral award because only US courts can attach foreign commercial assets found in the United States.

  • Universal Properties Management Use, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 1:21-CV-23509-JLK (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2021)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand, finding that the arbitration agreement was governed by the New York Convention, and thus the court had jurisdiction.  Court found that the signed application for the insurance policy constituted an agreement in writing.

  • Air-Con Inc. v. Daikin Applied Latin America LLC, No. 19-2248 (1st Cir. Dec. 20, 2021)

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s order compelling arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the district court impermissibly placed the burden of disproving the existence of a valid arbitral agreement on the non-moving party and did not comply with the requirement to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.  Court of appeals concluded that moving party failed to demonstrate the existence of a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate the dispute.

  • Hatfield v. MM Imports Inc., No. 7:21-CV-00055-REW-EBA (E.D. Ky. Dec. 15, 2021)

    Court granted motions to dismiss and compel arbitration under the FAA, finding a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

  • Trividia Health, Inc. v. Nipro Corporation, No. 1:20-CV-08450 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2021)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an ICC arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that it was deprived of due process and found none of the exceptional circumstances for vacatur applied.

  • Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 20-2152 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2021)

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision to dismiss an action without prejudice rather than stay it.  Court of appeals held that § 3 of the FAA conclusively establishes defendant’s right to stay an action pending arbitration of the remaining arbitrable claims, and that the FAA’s language that a district court “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action” conveys a mandatory obligation.

  • Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A., No. 1:19-CV-25217-DPG (S.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2021)

    Court granted petition to confirm, recognize and enforce arbitration award and to enter judgment under the New York Convention.  Court found respondent’s arguments against confirmation were barred, because it failed to provide notice or to move to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitral award within three months of its delivery.

  • 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. 

View All