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.

  • Antoine’s Restaurant, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 2:23-CV-00229-WBV-KWR (E.D. La. June 1, 2023)

    Court denied a motion for reconsideration of order and reasons and, in the alternative, a motion to stay arbitration pending judgment by the Fifth Circuit of related decisions, filed after the same court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court found plaintiffs’ argument that there was split authority in the district on enforcement of arbitration provisions in insurance contracts unpersuasive.

  • Ainstein AI, Inc. v. ADAC Plastics, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-11273-SMJ-KGA (D. Kan. May 31, 2023)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to transfer venue based on an arbitration agreement, finding that a carveout for certain equitable relief and references to waiver of jury trial in the parties’ agreement did not undermine the fundamental agreement to arbitrate.  Because the Tenth Circuit holds that only district courts in the forum identified in the parties’ agreement have authority to compel arbitration, the court transferred the case to the district identified in the agreement.

  • Elk Energy Holdings, LLC v. Lippelmann Partners, LLC, No. 6:22-CV-01057-DDC-KGG (D. Kan. May 31, 2023)

    Court granted in part defendants’ joint motion to dismiss based on an existing agreement’s arbitration clause, finding that, even in the face of fraudulent inducement claims, the enforceability of the contract was a question for the arbitrator.

  • Spinx Games, Ltd. v. Viel, No. 3:23-CV-01337-WHO (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2023)

    Court denied cross-motions to compel arbitration where both defendants agreed to the arbitrability of the dispute, but could not agree on location.  Defendant wished for combined arbitration in San Francisco, which was identified in the agreement’s venue provision, but the claims were filed with the AAA in five different states, and neither party inquired of AAA whether virtual hearings were possible.  Court found that, as the claims had been filed with AAA in other states, it had no jurisdiction and defendant would need to go to the arbitrators or district court in each of those states to enforce the venue provisions in the agreement.

  • Mousebelt Labs Pte. Ltd. v. Armstrong, No. 4:22-CV-04847-JST (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2023)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, finding defendants had not waived their right to arbitration by participating in state court litigation on the merits, because defendants previously lacked knowledge of a right to arbitrate.  Court also found the relationship between the parties justified equitably estopping plaintiff from repudiating the arbitration clause and required plaintiff to arbitrate its claims.

  • Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo and Ecree LLC, 19-MC-00195-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2023)

    Court granted the Republic of the Congo’s (“Republic”) motion to dismiss a petition for the turnover of property brought by judgment creditors premised on two arbitration awards.  Court reasoned that it did not have ancillary jurisdiction over the case because the judgment creditors did not sufficiently allege that the Republic fraudulently conveyed the property in question in order to avoid the judgments.  Court found further that dismissal was appropriate because the at-issue property was immune from execution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act.

  • Green Enterprises, LLC v. Hiscox Syndicates Limited at Lloyd’s of London, No. 21-1542 (1st Cir. May 19, 2023)

    Court of appeals upheld the district court’s grant of a motion to compel arbitration, holding that the New York Convention limits the applicability of a Puerto Rican state law that “renders unenforceable any provision in an insurance policy that would channel the resolution of a coverage dispute to a forum other than the courts.”  Court of appeals reasoned that Article II(3) of the New York Convention is self-executing based on the plain text and the treaty’s ratification history, and it therefore preempts the Puerto Rican law.  Court of appeals also determined that the at-issue arbitration agreement was not “incapable of being performed” on public policy grounds.

  • Bright v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00374 (M.D. Tenn. May 18, 2023

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding a power of attorney did not authorize the plaintiff to waive a trial by jury, so it did not authorize plaintiff to agree to binding arbitration.

  • Stephenson v. Rackspace Technology, Inc., 22-CV-01296-XR (W.D. Tex. May 18, 2023)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and dismiss the consolidated, putative class action cases arising from a cybersecurity incident.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was enforceable because plaintiffs continued use of defendant’s services was sufficient evidence of an intent to be bound by the terms of the agreement, and the contract was not the result of economic duress, was not unconscionable or illusory, and did not preclude injunctive relief, and because an arbitration forum would not be prohibitively costly.  Court also held that any questions concerning the arbitrability of the claims are reserved for the arbitrator.

  • T.T. International Co., LTD. v. BMP International, Inc., No. 22-CV-01876-WFJ-JSS (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2023

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration, finding that defendants waived any right to arbitration that they might have had under the agreement at issue by waiting until judgment had been entered in a related action and participating in three years of litigation prior to seeking to compel arbitration.

  • Valores Munidales, S.L. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 19-CV-00046-ACR-RMM (D.D.C. May 15, 2023

    Court granted, without objection, Venezuela’s motion to set aside default judgment and granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment to confirm an ICSID arbitration award issued against Venezuela.  Court found that the ICSID annulment committee did not violate Venezuela’s right to be heard by declining to recognize a representative of the Guaidó government in the annulment proceedings and therefore, no due process violation occurred.  Court further found that in enforcing the award, it was not recognizing any regime as the current official government of Venezuela.

  • Generali España de Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. Speedier Shipping, Inc., No. 22-1150 (2d Cir. May 11, 2023)

    Court of appeals affirmed order enforcing two foreign arbitration awards in favor of petitioner-appellee pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court of appeals rejected appellant’s arguments that it was not a party to the governing agreement and that the arbitration violated appellant’s due process rights.

  • Bach v. The Andersons, Inc., No. 5:22-CV-00226-KKC (E.D. Ky. May 8, 2023)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA in a breach of contract action, finding that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute fell within the scope of arbitration.  Court stayed the case pending arbitration.

  • Republic of Guatemala v. IC Power Asia Development LTD., No. 22-CV-00394-CM-JW (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2023)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel post-judgment discovery requests in connection with an arbitration award recognized pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court found that documents requested by petitioner clearly fell within the wide range of permitted post-judgment discovery, as they related to the assets and liabilities of the judgment creditor.  Court also granted petitioner’s request for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in making the motion to compel pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  • Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-0074-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. May 4, 2023)

    Court granted petition to compel arbitration, finding that parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the arbitration provision was invalidated under Louisiana insurance law, finding that the agreement in question was not an insurance contract but a services contract relating to insurance.

  • MSK Covertech, Inc. v. Fevisa Industrial, S.A. de C.V., No. 23-CV-00741-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2023)

    Court denied requests to file under seal petition to confirm foreign arbitration award and ex parte application for preliminary relief, finding that plaintiff articulated no compelling reason to justify sealing the filings.  Court rejected plaintiff’s conclusory argument that the filings should be sealed as they contain information that defendant alleged or may allege constitutes trade secret and proprietary information, because to overcome the strong presumption in favor of access, plaintiff must specify the trade secrets and proprietary information contained within the filings and articulate how their public disclosure might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.

  • DotC United, Inc. v. Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., No. 22-CV-04990-JSC (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2023)

    Court found that, where the parties did not agree to submit the arbitrability question to arbitration, the standard of review of an arbitration panel’s jurisdictional finding is “independent review” and not clear error, without deference to the panel’s findings.  In addition, court found that federal substantive law governed the arbitrability question in this action brought under the New York Convention given the need for uniformity in the application of international arbitration agreements.  Court further found that the Federal Rules of Evidence governed the court’s determination of arbitrability.

  • Polska Fundacja Narodowa v. Athlete Benefits Group, LLC, No. 22-CV-05725-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2023)

    Court confirmed a foreign arbitral award, finding respondents did not meet their burden of proving any defenses to enforcement under Art. V of the New York Convention.  Court found respondents failed to show that the signatures of the engagement agreement were altered, that petitioner’s action was untimely, that petitioner executed a settlement agreement, that the arbitrator was unqualified, or that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted service.

  • Iraq Telecom Limited v. IBL Bank S.A.L., No. 22-832 (2d Cir. Apr. 17, 2023)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying petition to stay enforcement of arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner’s motion despite an ongoing annulment proceeding in Lebanon.

  • Corporación AIC, SA v. Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita S.A., No. 20-13039 (11th Cir. April 13, 2023)

    Court of appeals sitting en banc vacated and remanded district court’s determination that it could not vacate an arbitration award on the grounds that the tribunal exceeded its powers pursuant to Chapter 1 of the FAA, because the grounds for vacatur are limited to those in Article V of the New York Convention under Eleventh Circuit precedent.  Court of appeals overruled its prior precedent and held that in a New York Convention case, where the arbitration is seated in the US or where US law governs the conduct of the arbitration, Chapter 1 of the FAA provides the grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award. 

  • Ribadeneira v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., No. 21-1831 (1st Cir. Apr. 6, 2023)

    Court of appeals reversed district court decision to vacate two foreign arbitral awards finding that non-signatories were bound to the arbitration agreement by theories of assumption and equitable estoppel.  Court of appeals found that the first plaintiff was subject to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, because as a successor-in-interest to the signatory company, it assumed the obligation to arbitrate.  Court of appeals concluded that the second plaintiff was estopped from avoiding the arbitration clause, where the plaintiff sought to enforce the terms of the agreement in Peruvian court and therefore, knowingly received direct benefits of the agreement.

  • Arbors on the Lake 2018, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 23-CV-00192-GGG-KWR (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2023)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, where the plaintiff failed to file any opposition contesting the motion.  Court found there was a written agreement to arbitrate, the agreement provided for arbitration in a New York Convention signatory nation, the agreement arose out of a commercial relationship, and a party to the agreement was not a U.S. citizen.

  • Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 20-CV-01708-EGS-MAU (D.D.C. March 31, 2023)

    Magistrate judge recommended that Spain’s motion to dismiss action to confirm arbitration award be denied, finding that (i) the court had subject matter jurisdiction under FSIA because plaintiffs had made a prima facie showing of the three required jurisdictional facts to invoke FSIA’s arbitration exception, (ii) Spain did not rebut the presumption that the treaty and notice of arbitration constituted an agreement to arbitrate, (iii) the arbitration award was entitled to full faith and credit, (iv) the foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine did not apply and, in any event, Spain could not claim compulsion where it had willfully submitted to and participated in the ICSID process, and (v) the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not available in proceedings to confirm a foreign arbitration award.  Magistrate judge, therefore, recommended plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion be granted, considering the exceptionally limited role the courts have in enforcing ICSID awards.

  • County of Monmouth and Scavello v. Rite Aid Corporation, No. 2:20-CV-02024-MSG (E.D. Pa. March 31, 2023)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that equitable estoppel did not bind non-signatory plaintiff to the arbitration agreement in a contract between defendant and a third party.  Court found that plaintiff’s tort claims were not efforts to enforce that contract, nor was her position such that she was bound to the agreements through obtaining or seeking to obtain benefits of the contract. 

  • A.D. Trade Belgium S.P.R.L. v. Republic of Guinea, No. 22-CV-00245-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2023)

    Court granted default judgment and confirmed two foreign arbitral awards, finding it had subject matter jurisdiction over Guinea under the arbitration exception to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and had personal jurisdiction as service was compliant with 28 USC § 1608.  Court confirmed the two awards under the New York Convention, because Guinea had not asserted any defenses to enforcement.  Court concluded that through its absence Guinea waived any statute of limitation defenses, so it did not address petitioner’s argument that the petition for confirmation was timely because the time to file was equitably tolled by Guinea’s appeal for annulment in France.

  • Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, No. 21-CV-09221-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2023)

    Court rejected respondent’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion to vacate a final judgment enforcing a foreign arbitral award where respondent could not establish that he did not receive proper notice of the underlying arbitration.

  • Drip Capital, Inc. v. M/S. Goodwill Apparels, No. 22-CV-02806-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2023)

    Court confirmed foreign arbitral award, finding Art. V(1)(e) of the New York inapplicable as respondent had not shown that any court set aside or suspended the award.  Court further declined to stay the decision on enforcement where a parallel case to appeal the award was pending in India given the delays the respondent had caused in the case.

  • Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. The Kingdom of Spain, No. 21-CV-03249-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2023)

    Court granted Spain’s motion to dismiss action to enforce foreign arbitral award.  Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), because Spain established that it lacked the legal authority to enter into an agreement to arbitrate with petitioners as a matter of EU law.  Court also rejected petitioners’ argument that that subject matter jurisdiction existed under FSIA’s waiver exception, finding that the Spain’s agreement to arbitrate was a prerequisite.

  • Hong Kong Continental Trade Co. Limited v. Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc., No. 22-CV-00571-JAK-AFM (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2023)

    Court compelled arbitration finding (1) issues of arbitrability are governed by federal law where the arbitration agreement is covered by the FAA and the parties did not clearly agree otherwise, (2) the agreement delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and (3) a court may not override a contract that clearly and unmistakably delegated issues of arbitrability.

  • Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Belmont Commons L.L.C., No. 22-CV-03874-EEF-MBN (E.D. La. Mar. 23, 2023)

    Court denied defendants’ second motion for reconsideration of order granting motion to compel arbitration, finding that the Western District of Louisiana’s recent decision not to compel arbitration was distinguishable because claims against foreign insurers in that case had been dismissed with prejudice, while potential claims against foreign insurers remained here, so the New York Convention was still implicated.  Court granted defendant’s alternative request to certify the order compelling arbitration as appealable pursuant to 28 USC § 1292(b), finding that it involved a controlling question of law.

  • LLC SPC Stileks v. The Republic of Moldova, No. 14-CV-01921-CRC (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2023)

    Court granted motion for an order under 28 USC § 1610(c) authorizing enforcement of judgment confirming arbitration award, finding that (i) the notice requirements described in 28 USC § 1608(e) did not apply in the case; (ii) a reasonable period of time had elapsed following the entry of judgment; and (iii) the court was a proper forum to issue a 28 USC § 1610(c) order.  Court also granted motion to compel discovery relating to Moldova’s assets with the exception of one request for production of documents.

  • OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 21-MC-00481-LPS (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2023)

    Court granted motions for a writ of attachment of the shares of PDV Holding, Inc. held by Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”) and other similar motions filed by judgment creditors of Venezuela (including creditors holding judgments on arbitral awards), finding that the creditors rebutted the presumption that Venezuela and PDVSA are separate and proved that PDVSA had been and is the alter ego of Venezuela, at all pertinent times.

  • The United Mexican States v. Nelson, No. 22-CV-04047-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa Mar. 23, 2023)

    Court granted petition for recognition and enforcement of arbitration award, finding that res judicata barred defendant’s claims in resistance to enforcement of the arbitration award.  Court also found that even if it were to entertain defendant’s claims, it would enforce the award because the arbitral tribunal afforded defendant due process and did not otherwise prevent him from presenting his case.

  • Amaplat Mauritius LTD. v. Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation, No. 22-CV-00058-CRC (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2023)

    Court granted motion to dismiss proceeding for recognition of a foreign court judgment enforcing an arbitration award as to the Republic of Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation on jurisdictional grounds, finding plaintiffs failed to adequately plead an alter ego relationship between the two.  Court, however, denied motion to dismiss proceedings as to third defendant, the Chief Mining Commissioner of the Zimbabwean Ministry of Mines, finding that it had jurisdiction over the Commissioner.

  • Foresight Energy, LLC v. Ace American Insurance Company, No. 22-CV-00887-JAR (E.D. Mo. Mar. 21, 2023)

    Court held that insurance policy arbitration clauses falling under the New York Convention were enforceable against a Missouri insured notwithstanding Missouri’s anti-arbitration statute, finding that the McCarran-Ferguson Act applies only to domestic legislation and does not contemplate the preemption of international treaties.  Court, therefore, referred plaintiff’s claims to arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.

  • Tulare Golf Course, LLC v. Vantage Tag, Inc., No. 21-CV-00505-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2023)

    Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) defendant who opposed the motion was not a party to the relevant arbitration agreement; and (ii) certain exceptions to compel non-signatories to arbitration did not apply.

  • Various Insurers, Reinsurers and Retrocessionaires v. General Electric International, Inc., No. 21-CV-04751-VMC (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2023)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention, finding that (i) enforcement of arbitration agreement under a third-party beneficiary doctrine was warranted under the facts of the case; and (ii) the agreement delegated questions of arbitrability, including scope, to the arbitrator.

  • Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador, No. 1:19-CV-02943-JMC (D.D.C. Mar. 16, 2023)


    Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the ICSID Convention.  Court rejected respondent’s request to set off and stay the award pending resolution of the parties’ tax dispute.  Court agreed with respondent that post-judgment interest should be calculated pursuant to 28 USC § 1961 rather than the ICSID award.

  • JLR Global, LLC v. Paypal Holding Co., No. 4:22-CV-00559-ALM (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2023)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court rejected respondents’ arguments that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties and that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause.  Court stayed all litigation in the lawsuit pending arbitration.

  • Manuel Alvarez, Sr. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-03343-JS-JMW (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2023)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration involving alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), New York Fair Credit Reporting Act (“NYFCRA”), and New York General Business Law §§ 380 et seq.  Court found that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement, the dispute was encompassed by the arbitration agreement, and the petitioner did not waive its right to pursue arbitration through its conduct in litigation.

  • Marilyn Azuz v. Accucom Corporation, d/b/a InfoTracer, No. 1:21-CV-01182 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2023)


    Court denied petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA in an action involving alleged violations of Illinois Rights of Publicity Act.  Court rejected petitioner’s arguments that respondent’s agent had actual or apparent authority to enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of the respondent and that, alternatively, respondent was bound by the arbitration agreement through ratification.

  • Shansby v. Edrington, USA, Inc., No. 22-CV-06907-JSC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding first that the incorporation of JAMS rules of arbitration into the parties’ arbitration agreement empowered the arbitrator to decide arbitrability and second that plaintiff’s argument that there was no good faith basis that the arbitration agreement governed the parties’ dispute was without merit. 

  • Roblox Corp. v. Wowwee Group Limited, No. 22-CV-04476-SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration against non-US residents where the arbitration agreement clearly set out that it was only applicable to US residents.  Court compelled arbitration for the US residents, finding the overall action seeks non-injunctive relief and therefore the injunctive relief exception under the contract was not applicable. 

  • Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. v. Galderma Labortories, L.P., No. 4:22-CV_00662-O (N.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2023)

    Court granted motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, finding principles of forum non conveniens is the appropriate way to enforce a forum-selection clause included in an arbitration agreement and subject to the New York Convention.

  • AALFS Family Partnership v. GSL Holdings, SA de CV, No. 22-2568 (8th Cir. 2023)

    Court affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award, having found no evidence of impartiality or misconduct by the arbitrator in refusing to hear evidence material to the controversy. 

  • Mrinalini, Inc. v. Valentino S.p.A., No. 22-CV-02453-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2023)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to enjoin the arbitration pending in Italy, concluding that the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably assigned the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  For the same reason, court granted defendant’s motion seeking to compel arbitration and stay the case pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

  • Hawthorne Industrial Products Inc. v. M/V Tac Imola, No. 22-CV-01376-RDB (D. Md. Feb. 16, 2023) 

    Court denied without prejudice defendants’ motion to stay litigation in favor of arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found it inequitable to bind plaintiff to an arbitration clause in the booking note, because defendants did not prove it was validly incorporated into the bills of lading.  Court concluded that the question of the arbitration clause’s applicability could be addressed again after the conclusion of discovery.

  • 9REN Holding S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 19-CV-018-71-TSC (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2023)

    Court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from seeking relief in a pending Luxembourg action, finding the express and primary purpose of the Luxembourg action was to terminate the present action to confirm a foreign arbitral award. 

  • Doraleh Container Terminal SA v. Republic of Djibouti, No. 20-02571-TFH (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2023)

    Court confirmed two arbitration awards, rejecting defendant’s argument that a court only has subject matter jurisdiction under 9 USC § 207 if the petition is made by a “party to the arbitration” and finding no basis to deny confirmation under the New York Convention. 

  • Nextera Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 19-CV-01618-TSC (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2023)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss finding it has jurisdiction under the FSIA and granted plaintiff’s preliminary injunction, finding the express and primary purpose of a pending action in the Netherlands was to terminate the present action to confirm a foreign arbitral award. 

View All