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.

  • Doe v. VGW Malta Ltd., No. 23-CV-03226-TWT (N.D. Ga. Nov. 28, 2023)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding an arbitration agreement exists between the parties and there are no grounds on which to deny enforcement of the agreement.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was void because it was made pursuant to a gambling contract which is illegal under Georgia law, and that plaintiff was fraudulently induced to enter the contract, finding both allegations are questions to be resolved by the arbitrator.

  • Insurance Company of Greater New York v. Kinsale Insurance Company, 1:23-CV-03577-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2023)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, although plaintiff was not a signatory to the policy at issue, reasoning that plaintiff was bound by the arbitration clause because plaintiff sought to enforce other provisions of the policy against defendant.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the policy contained a “service of suit” provision, finding that the clause applies only when a party seeks to compel arbitration or enforce an arbitration award.  Court similarly rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant waived its right to compel arbitration by delaying its motion to compel until a month after the suit was filed and a few days after removal to federal court.  Court stayed the proceedings pending resolution of the arbitration.

  • National Casualty Company v. Continental Insurance Company, 1:23-CV-03143 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2023)

    Court granted defendant’s cross-motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the interpretation of a contractual provision that was the subject of previous arbitrations between the same parties that were confirmed in federal court.  Court held that the preclusive effect of the previous arbitrations on the pending proceedings was appropriate for an arbitration panel to decide.  Court dismissed the case without prejudice, concluding that all of the claims were subject to arbitration.

  • Kelemen v. Olah, 1:22-CV-00566-JGLC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2023)

    Court appointed an arbitrator after the parties failed to agree to a neutral and sent the court proposed qualifications for the arbitrator.  Court selected an arbitrator who met the proposed qualifications and who it found to be best suited for the case based on her experience in New York.

  • Jean Lafitte Condominium, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 2:23-CV-03415-SSV-KWR (E.D. La. Nov. 14, 2023)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending arbitration.  Court found that the requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied and that the issue of arbitrability was for the arbitrators given the arbitration clause’s broad language encompassing all matters in difference, including those relating to the arbitrability of any dispute.  Court stayed the proceedings and declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the action, finding that defendants had not adequately justified that a dismissal, rather than a stay, was the proper action.

  • Morningstar v., 23-60367 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2023)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed as frivolous his appeal from the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of the case, noting that plaintiff had not shown he was fraudulently induced into agreeing to the arbitration provisions at issue.

  • Next Level Ventures LLC v. Avid Holdings Ltd., 2:23-MC-00052-LK (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2023)

    Court denied plaintiff’s application for a writ of execution for the United States Marshal to take possession of and sell certain of defendant’s personal property—including intellectual property, contract rights, or claims of compensation—after court confirmed ICDR award, and defendant appealed the court’s confirmation of the arbitrator’s award without moving for a stay.  Court reasoned that granting a writ of execution would be unjust because plaintiff could in theory purchase the rights at issue through the Marshal’s sale while also destroying the opposing party’s appeal by becoming its owner through enforcement of the very judgment under review.  Court also expressed hesitancy to issue a writ when plaintiff’s application did not specify whether the subject property is located within the state and indicated that the writ would be improper since plaintiff had not given a pre-sale notice to the debtor.

  • City Beverages LLC v. Crown Imports LLC, No. 3:22-CV-05756-DGE (W.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2023)

    Court denied motion for a temporary restraining order preventing transfer of distribution rights until after compensation for the distribution rights had been determined by agreement or arbitration where petitioner failed to establish the likelihood of irreparable damage and that the injunction was in the public interest.

  • La Belle Maison Associates, LLC v. Amrisc LP, No. 2:23-CV-06440-BWA-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2023)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings where the insurance policy at issue contained an arbitration clause that fell under the New York Convention and required all claims to be arbitrated in New York.

  • Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network Co., Ltd. v. Services LLC, No. 1:23-CV-03334-JLR (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2023)

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award and granted cross-motion to confirm the award where there was no basis to confirm that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law and where there was no public policy ground to vacate the award.

  • Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Co. Ltd. v. Dynamic Industries, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-01396-GGG-KWR (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2023)

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens or to compel arbitration where the parties’ agreed upon arbitration center, the Dubai International Financial Center London Court of International Arbitration, was replaced by the Dubai International Arbitration Center and was therefore no longer available.

  • RSM Production Corp. v. Gaz du Cameroun, S.A., No. 4:22-CV-03611 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2023)

    Court granted motion to partially vacate portion of arbitration award reducing recovery by roughly $4 million, and confirm the remaining portions of the award where the tribunal reversed course on a substantive legal issue it previously decided.

  • Allco Finance Limited, Inc. v. Trina Solar (U.S.) Inc., No. 9:23-CV-81111-RLR (S.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 2023)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the parties agreed to arbitrate and the dispute potentially fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements.  Court also found that the arbitration agreements delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating the AAA rules.

  • Barcadia Bar & Grill of New Orleans, LLC v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2:23-CV-03125-EEF-JVM (E.D. La. Nov. 2, 2023)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that defendants did not waive the arbitration clause because there was no evidence that defendants evinced a desire to resolve the dispute through litigation and because litigation was in its initial stages.  Court also found that the arbitration clause was enforceable under Article II of the New York Convention and Fifth Circuit precedent, although it was not signed by plaintiff.

  • Mayes v. International Markets Live, No. 2:22-CV-01269-TL (W.D. Wash. Nov. 2, 2023)

    Court granted, in part, defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that plaintiff’s claims arising after he signed the arbitration agreement were subject to mandatory arbitration and compelled arbitration of those claims.  Court did not rule on the validity of the arbitration provision, finding that it must be reviewed by arbitrator.

  • Dow Olefinverbund GmbH v. Trinseo Deutschland GmbH, No. 1:23-CV-07794-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2023)

    Court confirmed ICDR arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention where respondent failed to respond, finding petitioner had met its burden of demonstrating that the award should be confirmed.

  • Supercooler Technologies, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Company, No. 6:23-CV-00187-CEM-RMN (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2023)

    Magistrate judge recommended the court grant in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Magistrate judge found respondent did not establish clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, because even though the AAA rules were incorporated by reference, there was a further carve-out provision in the agreement.  Magistrate judge determined that some the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement while others did not and recommended staying the case pending arbitration.

  • GIC Re, India, Corporate Member Limited v. Tyson International Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-09175-DEH (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2023)

    Court granted request for stay of petition to compel arbitration while High Court of England and Wales addressed whether English courts were the appropriate forum to resolve dispute between the parties.

  • Fujian Shenda Investment Management Co., Ltd. v. Yunxin, No. 23-CV-05888-SB-BFM (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2023)

    Court ordered petitioner to show cause why action seeking to confirm foreign arbitral award should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over respondent, an individual residing in China.  Court requested petitioner respond providing authority for its position that the court may consider the objective of the lawsuit, to obtain a judgment and seek enforcement of an award by pursuing proceeds of a real estate sale in California, when analyzing specific jurisdiction.

  • All Premium Contractors, Inc. v. Sunlight Financial LLC, No. 1:23-CV-05059-JLR (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2023)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration under the FAA finding the plain meaning of the parties’ contractual amendments did not render the arbitration agreement void where they expressly maintained all terms in the main body of the agreement.  Court found that the agreement’s broad arbitration agreement may be reasonably reconciled with the forum selection clause by providing exclusive jurisdiction to New York courts for purposes of related litigation.

  • UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Gutiérrez, No. 3:21-CV-01277-GMM (D.P.R. Oct. 18, 2023)

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate arbitration award and granted defendants’ cross motion to confirm the award.  While one arbitrator failed to disclose five other legal proceedings in which he brought legal actions against large corporations similar to petitioner, the failure to disclose was insufficient to substantiate impartiality that materially prejudiced the arbitration proceedings.  Court further found that there was no manifest disregard for the law in the tribunal’s grant of a recession remedy where petitioner could not show that the arbitrators acted “intentionally in a manner so outside the realm of reasonable legality.”

  • Bequest Funds, LLC v. Magnolia Financial Group LLC, No. 3:23-CV-00886-B (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2023)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA only with respect to the signatories of the parties’ arbitration agreement.  Court reasoned that non-signatories may only be bound to an arbitration agreement where the parties’ expressed their intent to be bound to the agreement through principles of Texas state law.  Non-signatory defendants did not put forward any argument to show their intent to be bound, and thus the arbitration agreement was not enforceable for them.

  • Noble Prestige Limited v. Galle, No. 22-11520 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2023)

    Court of appeals found it lacked jurisdiction to review district court’s finding on subject matter jurisdiction over a petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award where its decision only dismissed petitioner’s claims against one respondent but left its claims against other respondents pending.  Court of appeals determined it had jurisdiction to review district court’s temporary restraining order, finding that it was actually a preliminary injunction subject to immediate review.  Court of appeals vacated the district court’s order, finding it violated the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine, since a Colorado probate court already exercised exclusive jurisdiction over respondents’ property, and the district court lacked the authority to issue a preliminary injunction freezing respondents’ assets under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

  • Exclusive Trim, Inc. v. Kastamonu Romania, S.A., No. 23-CV-03410-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2023)

    Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm and enforce foreign ICDR arbitration award under the New York Convention on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact precluding judgment in favor of enforcement, and because respondent neither appeared in the action nor opposed the petition.

  • Strong v. Cashbet Alderney Limited, No. 23-CV-02081-JSC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2023)

    Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss petitioner’s petition to confirm and enforce foreign ICDR arbitration award under the New York Convention on the ground that petitioner lacked Article III standing.  Court found that petitioner failed to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing because the arbitration award was fully satisfied long before the petition was filed.

  • BUA International Limited v. Domtec International LLC, No. 23-CV-00206-DCN (D. Idaho Oct. 11, 2023)

    Court granted petitioners’ petition to confirm foreign arbitral award and for an entry of judgment on the ground that respondent failed to explicitly invoke any of the seven grounds for refusal in Article V of the New York Convention, and even those defenses that could be implied were without any showing of proof.

  • Eletson Holdings, Inc. and Eletson Corporation v. Levona Holdings Ltd., No. 23-CV-07331-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2023)

    Court denied respondent’s motion for an order referring the proceeding to enforce a foreign arbitration award to the bankruptcy court on the grounds that respondent is not a debtor or creditor in the bankruptcy proceeding it references; respondent does not contend that the confirmation of an arbitration award is a core proceeding as to which the bankruptcy court has the power to enter a final judgment; and respondent invokes no authority for an Article III court to refer the matter to the bankruptcy court, which does not have Article III powers.

  • BBC Chartering Carriers GMBH & Co. KG v. HSIN Silk Road Shipping Ltd., No. 23-CV-06043-MWF-MRW (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2023)

    Court ordered petitioner to show cause why action seeking to confirm, recognize, and enforce foreign arbitral award should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, requesting either respondent respond to the outstanding petition, or petitioner submit an application to enter default.

  • EDE LLC v. Utopia Music AG, No. 23-CV-08015-CM (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2023)

    Court found it proper to stay the action pending arbitration even though plaintiffs did not move to stay, because plaintiff’s motion for attachment in aid of arbitration had the same effect as a motion to stay arbitration in that it requires the court maintain jurisdiction of the matter pending a decision on the attachment motion.

  • SinSin Europe Solar Asset Limited Partnership v. SPI Energy Co. Ltd., 2:22-CV-01991-MCE-JDP (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2023)

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration awards under the New York Convention.  Court awarded attorneys’ fees to petitioner based on respondent’s refusal to pay valid arbitral awards, forcing petitioners to bring the instant action.  Court declined to order injunctive relief in the form of a worldwide asset freeze until petitioners could show that respondent is refusing to comply with the court’s orders after judgment has been entered.

  • Gresham v. Safeguard Metals, LLC, 2:23-CV-06036-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2023)

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA where respondents accepted service but declined to respond to the petition.

  • McGuire v. Safeguard Metals, LLC, 2:23-CV-05874-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2023)

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA where respondents accepted service but declined to respond to the petition.

  • In re: Application of Caterpillar Credito, No. 1:22-MC-00412-GBW (D. Del. Sep. 28, 2023)

    Court granted in part an application pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for leave to serve subpoenas on credit card companies seeking records for use in an action pending in Curaçao court where the statutory factors were met and the discretionary factors weighed in favor of granting discovery.  Court limited petitioner’s use of the records to the Curaçao proceeding and prohibited their use in an ongoing ICC arbitration.  Court denied in part the application where the time requested for the subpoenas was overly broad.

  • Magual v. Dager, No. 1:23-CV-23491-RAR (S.D. Fla. Sep. 27, 2023)

    Court granted application to confirm an ICC arbitral award under the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, where none of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition of the award existed.  Court found that petitioners were entitled to recover their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in confirming the award, because respondent demonstrated bad faith conduct in his refusal to abide by the award and through his conduct in the ICC arbitration.

  • Fasano v. Li, No. 1:16-CV-08759-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 27, 2023)

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration where plaintiffs did not impliedly or expressly waive their right to arbitrate their common-law claims and there had been almost no litigation on the merits of the dispute.  Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and stayed the case pending the completion of the arbitration.

  • First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting W.L.L. v. Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc., No. 1:23-MC-00001-AJT-WEF (E.D. Va. Sep. 22, 2023)

    Court granted motion to confirm five partial arbitration awards, two joint stipulations, and a final award, finding that the limitations period for confirmation began to run from the date of the final award and therefore, the motion to confirm was timely pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court denied interest on the two stipulations where interest was not contemplated by the parties.

  • Global Gaming Philippines, LLC v. Razon, 1:21-CV-02655-LGS-SN (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2023)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to confirm a foreign arbitral award against debtor defendants and enforce the award against their alleged alter ego without prejudice.  As to personal jurisdiction over the debtor defendants, the court reasoned that neither the doctrine of issue preclusion nor judicial estoppel applied to the arbitral tribunal’s findings as to those defendants’ alleged contacts in New York, an agreement allegedly signed in New York, and a road show that allegedly took place in New York.  Court found there were disputed issues as to whether the defendants transacted business in New York under New York’s long arm statute and whether they were alter egos of the third defendant.  Court held that those two defendants did not consent to personal jurisdiction through the at-issue agreement, and there was no jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).  As to the third defendant, court held there were disputed issues regarding his status as the alter ego for purposes of enforcing the award and denied cross-motions for summary judgment on that basis.

  • Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 1:19-CV-04560 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 12, 2023)

    Court granted in part respondent’s motion to dismiss, in part, and held that several petitioners seeking relief under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act failed to plead proper venue.  Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss as to the remaining petitioners by taking “judicial notice of today’s norm that smartphone users use their smartphone where they live and travel and likely purchased it nearby” and inferring from that fact, plus the pleadings, that those petitioners had established venue.  Court found it had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim under the New York Convention, since it involved compelling arbitration with a foreign party under a commercial arbitration agreement.  Court granted petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration, as to the properly-venued petitioners, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate with a scope covering the dispute, and that respondent had refused to arbitrate by refusing to pay administrative fees owed to AAA.  Court further ordered respondent to pay the fees owed to AAA.

  • Office Create Corporation v. Planet Entertainment, LLC, 1:22-CV-08848-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 11, 2023)

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award and denied respondents’ cross-petition to vacate the award pursuant to the FAA and New York Convention.  Court found that respondents’ arguments did not fit within the limited circumstances in which the court may vacate the award because the award was the product of the parties’ agreements to submit to arbitration; the parties were represented by counsel and actively participated in the arbitration; and the tribunal’s award as to both jurisdiction and the merits were based on detailed reasoning that did not constitute a manifest disregard of the law.

  • Salzgitter Mannesmann International (USA) Inc. v. Esmark, Inc., 3:22-CV-00030 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 11, 2023)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondents’ motion to vacate the arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Court held that the disclosure by one of the arbitrators of his daughter’s employment as a non-lawyer at the law firm representing the petitioner did not constitute a significant compromising relationship; and the arbitration panel did not display actual bias through its decisions made during the final hearing.  Court also rejected one respondent’s argument that the award could not be enforced because the final award listed the name of an entity different from the name of respondent, reasoning that a technical defect in an arbitration award, such as misnaming a party, does not prevent confirmation of the award.

  • Terris v. Sprint Corporation, 8:23-CV-01033-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla. Sep. 11, 2023)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that it had waived its arbitration rights by demonstrating a clear intent to litigate prior to asserting any arbitration rights.  Court acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., cast doubt on the import of prejudice in the Eleventh Circuit’s test for waiver of arbitration rights, but nonetheless found that plaintiff was prejudiced by defendant’s belated assertion of arbitration rights.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, No. 22-CV-07503-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2023)

    Court denied respondent’s motion for stay of enforcement of arbitration award pending appeal, finding that respondent did not make a strong showing that its appeal was likely to succeed on the merits; respondent did not demonstrate it would suffer irreparable injury absent a stay pending appeal; there was little likelihood of substantial injury to nonmoving party; and public policy considerations did not weigh in favor of stay.  Court granted respondent a temporary administrative stay of fourteen days to allow it to seek relief under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a).

  • Telecom Business Solution, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., No. 22-CV-1761-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2023)

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and denied respondents’ cross-petition to vacate the award pursuant to the FAA, finding that the tribunal did not manifestly disregard the law; respondents failed to identify any evidence that they were prevented from presenting in the arbitration and likewise failed to establish any misconduct by the tribunal that rendered the arbitration fundamentally unfair; the tribunal did not exceed its scope of powers; and the arbitration award was not the product of “evident partiality” of the tribunal.

  • FG Hemisphere Associates, LLC v. Democratic Republic of Congo, 22-CV-02369-PJM (D. Md. Sept. 5, 2023)

    Court denied motion to dismiss complaint seeking, among other things, that a constructive trust be imposed upon certain assets of defendants for the execution on two judgments arising out of International Court of Arbitration awards.  Court found that plaintiff had standing; there was no statute of limitations issue on the face of the complaint; and plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to permit defendants to respond and for the case to go forward.  Court granted motion for writ of attachment before judgment, finding that plaintiff was entitled to attachment before judgment and was not required to proceed by way of garnishment pursuant to Maryland law.

  • United States v. Water Quality Insurance Syndicate, No. 8:22-CV-02158-TBP-CPT (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2023)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, finding the non-signatory defendant was a party to an arbitration agreement through the “direct benefits estoppel” theory.  Defendant sought payment and indemnity under the contract containing an arbitration agreement between the vessel operator and insurer, thus embracing the contract, and consenting to arbitration.  Considering the binding arbitration agreement, court denied third party defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding it more appropriate to stay the proceedings pending arbitration.

  • W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. v. Diego Zamora S.A., No. 1:21-CV-11003-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2023)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for alternative service nunc pro tunc, finding previous attempts to serve the respondent by email, certified mail, Federal Express, and the Spanish Central Authority, were not prohibited by international agreement and comported with constitutional notions of due process.  Court also granted respondents’ motion to dismiss and denied petitioner’s application to vacate the parties’ arbitration award, where there was no evidence to show the arbitral tribunal ignored principles of collateral estoppel in issuing its award.

  • Ivan v. Interactive Brokers LLC, No. 22-CV-03999-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2023)

    Court denied petitioners motion to vacate FINRA arbitration award finding petitioners’ arguments unavailing that the arbitrator exceeded its authority and violated public policy, failed to provide for fundamental fairness during the proceedings, and acted in manifest disregard of the law.  Court granted respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the award under the New York Convention.

  • Athene Holding Ltd. v. Dang, No. 1:23-MC-00171-JHR-SLC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2023)

    Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part an application for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 seeking documents and records from three arbitration proceedings and an action in New York Supreme Court for use in a civil action in Bermuda.  The magistrate judge ordered the parties to meet and confer to determine which documents and testimony are relevant to the claims in Bermuda.

  • Fitzgerald v. Wildcat, Sr., No. 3:20-CV-00044-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2023)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration finding that a valid arbitration agreement did not exist pursuant to the FAA where loan agreements waived all state substantive rights and remedies in violation of public policy.  Although there was a clause delegating questions of arbitrability to arbitration, the court assessed the enforceability of the delegation clause given plaintiff’s challenge to its validity.

  • Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd. v. Occidental Exploration and Production Co., No. 21-3039 (2d. Cir. Aug. 18, 2023)

    Court of appeals affirmed judgment of district court in part and vacated in part.  Court of appeals upheld district court’s confirmation of the arbitration award as there was no evidence in the record that an arbitrator’s nondisclosure of a professional connection to petitioner’s counsel from an unrelated prior arbitration and arbitration conferences interfered with the composition of the arbitral authority.  Court of appeals vacated the district court’s award of pre-judgment interest because it was not confident that the district court accurately calculated the compound interest.

View All