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.

  • Phoenix East II Association, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Llyod’s, No. 22-00436-CG-N (S.D. Ala. Feb. 13, 2023)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration finding the arbitration agreement which provided for the application of New York law did not conflict with an Alabama state law that held all insurance contracts executed within the state be governed by Alabama law.

  • In Re Application of Alpene Ltd., No. 21-MC-02547-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2022)

    Court stayed motion to vacate order granting discovery in aid of foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 USC. § 1782 pending Supreme Court’s decision on whether arbitrations conducted pursuant to bilateral investment treaties qualify as international tribunals under 28 USC. § 1782.

  • APG Worldwide Ltd v. Passfeed Inc., No. 1:22-CV-03078-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2022)

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration and to stay litigation action pending arbitration, finding there was no genuine dispute between the parties regarding either motion.

  • In Re Application of Webuild S.P.A. and Sacyr S.A., No. 22-MC-00140-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022)

    Court granted motions to vacate order granting ex parte application for discovery pursuant to 28 USC. § 1782 and quash subpoena, finding that petitioner failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of 28 USC. § 1782 because ICSID is not a foreign or international tribunal within the meaning of the statute.

  • The Federal Republic of Nigeria v. VR Advisory Services, Ltd., No. 21-MC-00007-JGK-VF (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2022)

    Court ordered respondents to produce documents from a shareholder arbitration pursuant to 28 USC § 1782, finding that petitioner had demonstrated the documents are relevant to the issue of the fraudulent arbitration award and that petitioner was not required to exhaust opportunities for discovery before the foreign tribunal.

  • Canobinoti, LLC v. Woods, No. 20-CV-25081-MGC (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2022)

    Court found a provision designating the International Arbitration Center as the arbitral forum was not integral to the agreement as it does not “pervade” the agreement.  Accordingly, the court recommends the appointment of a substitute arbitrator pursuant to § 5 of the FAA.

  • In re Application of Alpene, Ltd., No. 21-MC-02547-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 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.

  • 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)

    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.

  • TIG Insurance Company v. Republic of Argentina, No. 18-MC-00129-DLF (D.D.C. Aug. 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)

    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.

  • Iraq Telecom Ltd. v. IBL Bank S.A.L., No. 22-540-CV (2d Cir. August 5, 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.

  • Jones Day v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, No. 21-16642 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 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)

    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.

  • 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)

    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)

    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.

  • Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC v. Mahalaxmi Continental Limited, No. 22-CV-00781-WSH (W.D. Pa. June 14, 2022)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining defendants from pursuing and the AAA from further processing defendants’ demand for arbitration.  Court found that plaintiff had established more than a reasonable probability of success on the merits that it never agreed to submit to arbitration, that a TRO was necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm, that the balance of harms clearly and strongly weighed in favor of plaintiff, and that granting of a TRO was in the public interest.

  • ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., No. 21-401 (S. Ct. June 13, 2022)

    Supreme Court, in a consolidated appeal, reversed the district court’s order in ZF Automotive denying the motion to quash a 28 USC §1782 application and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in AlixPartners that affirmed the district court’s order granting a discovery request.  Supreme Court unanimously held that neither the tribunal under the auspices of the German Institution of Arbitration, nor the ad hoc tribunal under the UNCITRAL arbitration rules, fell within the scope of the term “tribunal” in 28 USC §1782(a).  Court held that only a governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative body constituted a “foreign or international tribunal,” reasoning that although a “tribunal” need not be a formal court, attached to the modifiers “foreign or international,” the phrase is best understood to refer to an adjudicative body that exercises governmental authority.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • CMB Infrastructure Group IX, LP v. Cobra Energy Investment Finance, Incorporated, No. 21-CV-00214-JAD-DJA (D. Nev. Nov. 15, 2021)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration for certain claims, finding that the arbitration clause remained active after termination of the agreement and that both signatory and non-signatory defendants could compel arbitration.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.”

  • Cota v. Art Brand Studios LLC, No. 21-CV-01519-LJL (S.D.N.Y. October 15, 2021)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court found defendant eliminated its ability to arbitrate by allowing the arbitration to terminate after an arbitration panel gave it the option to cover the arbitration costs of both parties or cease the proceedings and it chose the latter.

  • Vale S.A. v. BSG Resources Limited, No. 19-CV-03619-VSB-RWL (S.D.N.Y. October 15, 2021)

    Court compelled alter ego of defendant to comply with discovery requests in aid of execution of plaintiff’s judgment arising from the Court’s enforcement of a London Court of International Arbitration award.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti et al., No. 21-CV-04960-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2021)

    Court granted non-party central bank’s motion to intervene in action seeking a maritime attachment in aid of arbitration against foreign state.  Court vacated the attachment, finding that plaintiff did not rebut the presumption that the central bank’s account was immune from attachment under Section 1611(b)(1) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.  Court additionally granted central bank’s motion to quash subpoena and protective order.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, No. 4:21-CV-01953 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 3, 2021)

    Court granted motion to stay attachment proceedings, pending a decision on plaintiff’s action to confirm and enforce the partial final arbitral award in New York federal district court.

  • Luxshare, Ltd. v. ZF Automotive US, Inc., No. 2:20-MC-51245-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich. Aug. 17, 2021)

    Court denied respondent’s motion to stay the case pending appeal, finding that respondent had not demonstrated any irreparable harm, that respondent had little likelihood of success considering that Sixth Circuit precedent permits discovery under § 1782 for private arbitration, that petitioner could suffer harm if discovery is stayed, and that the public interest weighed against a stay.  Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel discovery under § 1782 and ordered respondent to comply with the subpoenas.

  • CW Baice Limited v. The Wisdomobile Group Limited, No. 5:20-CV-03526-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2021)

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dissolve preliminary injunction on the dissipation of defendants’ assets pending an arbitration before the HKIAC, finding that a Hong Kong court’s decision to dissolve a similar injunction did not change the balance of equities which led the U.S. court to issue the injunction in question.

  • In re Ex Parte Application of Eni S.p.A. for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 1:20-MC-00334-MN (D. Del. July 15, 2021)

    Court denied respondents’ motion for re-argument and reconsideration, finding that respondents did not provide a compelling reason for reconsideration of its decision to grant discovery for use in the Italian criminal proceeding and the ICSID proceeding pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  Court also rejected respondents’ request to narrow the subpoenas to apply only to the respondent with a financial interest in the proceedings, concluding that respondents should have raised the argument earlier.  Court denied petitioner’s motion for sanctions, finding that petitioner was not entitled to costs of responding to the motion.

  • The Application of the Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for an Order granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 20-2653 (2d Cir. July 15, 2021)

    Court of appeals affirmed the District Court’s order granting petitioners’ application pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to obtain discovery from a third party for use in an arbitration proceeding between plaintiff and the Republic of Lithuania under the bilateral investment treaty between Lithuania and Russia.  Court of appeals found that the proceeding was before a foreign or international tribunal because the arbitration was between an investor and foreign state party to a bilateral investment treaty and the tribunal was established by that treaty; that plaintiff qualified as an interested person under § 1782 because it is a party to the arbitration; and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the relevant factors.

  • International Energy Ventures Management L.L.C. v. United Energy Group Limited, No. 20-20221 (4th Cir. May 28, 2021)

    Court reversed the district court’s finding that International Energy Ventures Management’s (“IEVM”) pursuit of litigation did not prevent it from returning to arbitration, after the dispute bounced between three courts and two arbitrations over the course of seven years.  Court found that two arbitrators exceeded their powers in violation of the FAA when they determined that IEVM waived its right to arbitrate through litigation-conduct, as that determination is presumptively a judicial matter, and the parties failed to contract around the general rule that courts resolve litigation-conduct waivers. Court held that IEVM substantially invoked the judicial process to United Energy Group’s detriment.

  • Luxshare, Ltd. v. Zf Automotive US, Inc., No. 2:20-MC-51245 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2021)

    Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part motion to quash subpoenas in connection with discovery for use in foreign proceedings, finding that plaintiff met the statutory requirements of 28 USC 1782(a) but ordering that the discovery be circumscribed.

  • Food Delivery Holding 12 S.A.R.L. v. Barnes Thornburg LLP, No. 2:21-MC-00137-JFW (C.D. Cal. May. 17, 2021) 

    Court denied petitioner’s application for discovery for use in a foreign proceeding.  Court held that, in the absence of binding authority on whether private arbitrations qualify as “foreign or international tribunals, it would join lower courts in the Circuit in concluding that private arbitrations are not “tribunals” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1782.

  • In re Application of Food Delivery Holding 12 S.A.R.L., No. 1:21-MC-00005-GMH (D.D.C. May 10, 2021)

    Court granted applicant’s application for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for testimonial and documentary evidence for use in an international arbitration before the DIFC-LCIA.  Court declined to find whether Section 1782 discovery is available in private commercial arbitrations, finding instead that discovery was proper where the DIFC-LCIA was state-sponsored by the United Arab Emirates.

  • Healey v. Elliot, P.C., No. 20-CV-13209-MAG-RSW (E.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to take limited discovery to respond to defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  The court noted that limited discovery requests of this kind are entertained by the Sixth Circuit because motions to compel arbitration are evaluated similarly to motions for summary judgment.

  • Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC, No. 0:20-MC-00081-JRT-KMM (D. Minn. April 1, 2021) 

    Court sua sponte entered order staying the matter for an application to take discovery for use in foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, pending Supreme Court’s review of the issue.

  • Maine Community Health Options v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., No. 20-35931 (9th Cir. March 31, 2021) 

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s order dismissing action for enforcement of a third-party subpoena issued by arbitrators for want of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the alleged subpoenaed information would likely impact more than $75,000 of petitioner’s claims in the arbitration.

  • Cognac Ferrand S.A.S. v. Mystique Brands LLC, No. 20-CV-05933-PAE (S.D.N.Y. January 7, 2021)

    Court denied Cognac Ferrand’s application for a temporary restraining order preventing Mystique Brands from moving forward with its enforcement of an arbitral award in France. Court found no serious question going to the merits necessary to support a temporary restraining order noting that review of an arbitral award is severely limited, and Ferrand did not provide evidence that would support vacatur of the award.

  • Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC and The Boeing Company, No. 19-1847 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2020) 

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not authorize courts to compel discovery for use in private foreign arbitration.  Court found that the Supreme Court’s decision in Intel did not authorize courts to provide discovery assistance in private foreign arbitrations and noted that interpreting § 1782 to include private foreign arbitral tribunals would conflict with the FAA.

  • In re: Ex Parte Application of Axion Holding Cyprus Ltd. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Leave to Take Discovery for use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 1:20-MC-00290-MN (D. Del. Sept. 18, 2020) 

    Court denied petitioner’s ex parte application for leave to take discovery for use in two private LCIA arbitrations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court found that although the Third Circuit has not determined whether private commercial arbitrations are “tribunals” within the meaning of the statute, it agreed with the recent district court cases holding that private commercial arbitrations are not “tribunals.”  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the LCIA acts with the authority of the state because the tribunals are governed by the U.K. Arbitration Act of 1996 and the parties may seek judicial review.

  • In re the Application of the Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign State Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 1::1199-MC-0000440011-AT (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2020)

    Court granted petitioner’s application to seek discovery of third parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, finding that although private commercial arbitrations do not qualify as “foreign or international tribunals” under the statute, recent precedent suggests that arbitrations conducted pursuant to a bilateral investment treaty do qualify.

  • Ullrich v. Ullrich, No. 20-CV-23505 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2020)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief in aid of an impending international arbitration, finding that the vague possibility that defendant would close on a transaction relevant to the arbitration was insufficient to allege that immediate and irreparable harm would occur absent injunctive relief.

  • In re: Application of Atvos Agroindustrial Investimentos, S.A. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 1:20 MC-00211-GBD-SDA (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2020)

    Court granted in part respondents’ motion to quash subpoenas issued under petitioner’s motion to take discovery from third parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in furtherance of arbitral and injunction proceedings, finding inter alia that petitioner was not entitled to take discovery for use in an arbitral proceeding as it was not “a foreign or international tribunal.”

  • In Re Petition of the Republic of Turkey, No. 2:19-CV-20107-ES-SCM (D.N.J. Cal. July 17, 2020)

    Court denied petition seeking an order directing discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court found that the petitioner met the statutory requirements of § 1782, rejecting respondent’s contention that§ 1782 prohibited discovery because the petitioner was seeking discovery not only to defend itself in international arbitration, but also to gather evidence for a criminal trial against respondent.  However, the court found that one of the intel factors, whether the requests are intrusive and burdensome, required the court to deny the petition because respondent asserted his fifth amendment privilege and because respondent has indefinite asylum in the United States. Court thus exercised its discretion to deny the petition.

  • La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Company Limited v. Lan, No. 1:20-MC-00200-VEC (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020) 

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for an order of attachment in aid of two arbitrations pending before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”).  Court found petitioners met requirements for attachment under New York CPLR § 7502(c) and Article 62, because petitioners had a cause of action in the form of the arbitrations; a likelihood of success on the merits, as they were already awarded arbitral awards against the respondents; the awards may be ineffectual without the attachment; and respondents had no pending counterclaims against petitioners.

  • In re Ex Parte Petition of the Republic of Turkey for an Order Directing Discovery from Hamit Cicek Pursuant to 28 USC § 1782, No. 2:19-CV-20107-ES-SCM (D.N.J. May 18, 2020) 

    Court denied motions to vacate, quash, compel discovery, and issue sanctions against the Republic of Turkey and granted the Republic’s motion to enforce subpoenas issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for use in an ICSID arbitration.  Court found that the ex parte application did not deny the subpoena recipient due process, the Republic was not barred from § 1782 discovery because of pending criminal charges against the subpoena recipient, and granting assistance did not circumvent US public policy.

  • Sampedro v. Silver Point Capital, L.P., No. 19-272 (2d Cir. May. 1, 2020)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying motion to compel discovery under 28 USC § 1782. Court found that district court did not need to consider procedural parity with respect to all possible foreign proceedings when determining whether to grant party reciprocal discovery under the section.

View All