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.

  • Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 20-7116 (D.C. Cir. July 27, 2022)

    Court of appeals denied appellant’s petition for panel rehearing of its ruling affirming district court’s post-judgment order, which denied Romania’s motion for relief from satisfaction of the district court’s judgment and ordered Romania to pay outstanding amounts on an ICSID award.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, No. 21-CV-09040-PKC (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2022)

    Court granted intervenor’s motion to vacate the maritime attachments of two bank accounts in relation to an arbitration award rendered against the Republic of Haiti, finding that the accounts were immune from attachment under the FSIA, because the intervenor, a commercial bank, was wholly owned by the Republic of Haiti.  The attachment did not meet the exception to the FSIA for arbitral awards because the attachment applied not to property of Haiti but to property owned by a legally distinct and autonomous commercial bank.  Court also denied plaintiff’s request for additional discovery.

  • 245 Park Member LLC v. HNA Group (International) Company Limited, No. 22-CV-05136-JGK (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2022)

    Court confirmed a non-domestic arbitral award under the New York Convention finding that although the arbitrator did not permit discovery or hold an evidentiary hearing, she adequately considered submissions such that it was not fundamentally unfair or contrary to the parties’ arbitration agreement.

  • Molecular Dynamics Ltd. v. Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited, No. 22-CV-04332-PAE (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2022)

    Court dissolved preliminary injunction that enjoined defendants from enforcing an arbitral award outside of New York based on a forum selection clause in one of the parties’ agreements. Court found that the doctrine of judicial estoppel would likely bar plaintiff’s claims, because plaintiff had previously asserted in another court that an award in its favor would be enforceable outside of New York.

  • Tecnicas Reunidas de Talara S.A.C. v. SSK Ingenieria y Construccion S.A.C., No. 21-13776 (11th Cir. July 22, 2022)

    Court of appeals affirmed confirmation of an arbitral award under the Panama Convention rejecting petitioner’s argument that the award should be vacated because two of its attorneys withdrew and became employed at the opposing party’s law firm during the arbitration. Court of appeals held that because the petitioner had prior knowledge of this change but waited to object until it received an adverse award, it had waived its right to a public-policy defense.

  • Trividia Health, Incorporated vs. Nipro Corporation, No. 20-CV-08450-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2022)

    Court declined to reconsider and reduce prejudgment interest in arbitral award from the New York State statutory rate to the federal rate or the rate chosen by the arbitration panel.  Court determined that such relief should only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, and none were present, especially because movant could have made this argument earlier.

  • Equipav S.A. Pavimentção Engenharia e Comercia Ltda. v. Bertin, No. 22-CV-4594-PGG (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2022)

    Court granted permission to serve respondent with petition to confirm arbitration award through an alternative service method via email to respondent’s various counsel.  Court found that service via email was not prohibited by any applicable international agreement and did not offend due process.  Petitioner reasonably attempted to effectuate service by initiating the process under the Hague Convention, but because this service method would unnecessarily delay the case seven to twelve months, court intervention was warranted and necessary.

  • GBM Global Holding Company Limited v. 91 Individuals Attached to Schedule A, No. 21-CV. 6284-AKH (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022)

    Court confirmed a foreign arbitration award, finding there were no enumerated grounds for refusing or deferring recognition or enforcement of the award under the New York Convention, where respondents failed to appear before both the arbitral tribunal and motion to confirm the foreign arbitral award.

  • Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation., No. 19-3159 (L) (2d Cir. July 8, 2022)

    Court of appeals held that it was only obligated to afford comity to the parts of the award which the Nigerian court’s judgment previously set aside.  The case was remanded to the district court to determine precisely which aspects of the award are enforceable under the Nigerian judgment, and then enter a partial enforcement order based on that determination.

  • The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v. Baldwin, No. 20-CV-00195-CRK (D. Idaho July 1, 2022)

    Court denied defendants’ motion to stay further proceedings in the enforcement of an arbitral award pending resolution of three foreign proceedings, concluding that a stay was not warranted under either its inherent power to stay cases or under Article VI of the New York Convention.

  • Hydro Energy 1, S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 21-CV-2463-RJL (D.D.C. June 28, 2022)

    Court granted Spain’s motion to stay the proceedings to enforce an arbitral award until a pending ICSID annulment proceeding is concluded based on its inherent power to control the disposition of actions on its docket.  Further, the court noted that at least six similarly-situated petitioners have sought to enforce arbitral awards against Spain in the district and each had been stayed.  Court denied Spain’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.

  • Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 20-7116 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2022)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s post-judgment order denying Romania’s motion for relief from satisfaction of the district court’s judgment, which ordered Romania to pay amounts outstanding under an ICSID award, by paying a less valuable Romanian judgment relating to the same award.  Court of appeals also affirmed the grant of petitioners’ motion for civil contempt and sanctions for Romania’s defiance of a post-judgment discovery order.

  • Reddy v. Buttar, No. 20-1633 (4th Cir. June 24, 2022)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to enforce arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Court of appeals found the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 9 USC § 203, holding along with the Second and Ninth Circuits that a plaintiff’s failure to establish the specific requirements of an enforceable arbitration agreement or award under the New York Convention is a merits question that does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction.  It further found that the court had personal jurisdiction over respondent who conceded that he was domiciled in North Carolina when the action was commenced, and affirmed the court’s entry of summary judgment, finding respondent did not present evidence to support his contention that the underlying agreement was a forgery.

  • Salzgitter Mannesmann International (USA) Inc. v. Sun Steel Company LLC, No. 22-CV-00030 (S.D. Tex. June 24, 2022)

    Court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss motion to confirm arbitral award, finding it had subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention.  Court concluded that the award arose out of a legal relationship with a reasonable relationship to a foreign state as required by 9 USC § 202, because the parties’ contract required petitioner to purchase steel from a Canadian company.

  • Rachan Reddy v. Rashid Buttar, No. 20-1633, (4th Cir. June 24, 2022)

    Court rejected arguments on appeal that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the arbitration award was not enforceable under the New York Convention, lacked personal jurisdiction because defendant was domiciled in New Zealand, and entered summary judgment improperly because there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding arbitration agreement.

  • UAB Skyroad Leasing v. OJSC Tajik Air, The Republic of Tajikistan, No. 21-7015 (D.C. Cir. June 17, 2022)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s judgment dismissing a petition to enforce an arbitral award for lack of personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.  Court of appeals found that appellant failed to rebut the presumption of separateness between appellee, an instrumentality, and the Republic of Tajikistan, holding that Tajikistan’s sole ownership of appellee did not establish the level of control required to show that a principal-agent relationship existed.

  • Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Novartis AG, No. 22-CV-04162-CM (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2022)

    Court denied respondent’s unopposed motion to seal in its entirety—or in the alternative, file a heavily redacted version of—a final arbitration award, except to the extent that the redactions covered proprietary or confidential business information.  Court held that when a party seeks confirmation of an arbitration award, the award becomes a judicial document subject to the presumption of public access, pursuant to the First Amendment and common law right to access judicial documents and proceedings.

  • Gebre v. Kyrgyz Republic, No. 20-CV-01795-ABJ (D.D.C. June 14, 2022)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for default judgment and confirmed the arbitral award against the Kyrgyz Republic.  Court found that given it had jurisdiction under the FAA, respondent was not immune under the FSIA, petitioner properly served respondent, and none of the grounds for denying recognition of an arbitral award under the New York Convention were applicable.

  • Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. 21-55537 (9th Cir. June 10, 2022)

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s dismissal for lack of statutory standing in a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), in which plaintiff-appellant alleged that defendants engaged in illegal activities to thwart execution of a US district court judgment confirming a foreign arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Consistent with the Second and Third Circuits, but disagreeing with the Seventh Circuit’s residency-based test for domestic injuries involving intangible property, court of appeals held that the alleged injuries to a judgment obtained by plaintiff from a US district court in California were domestic injuries to property such that plaintiff had statutory standing under RICO.

  • Oriental Republic of Uruguay v. Italba Corporation, No. 21-CV-24264-MD (S.D. Fla. June 8, 2022)

    Court granted in part and denied in part petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which petitioner sought to enforce an arbitration award.  Pursuant to the ICSID Convention and its enabling statute, 22 USC § 1650a, the court ordered that the pecuniary obligations in the arbitral award be recognized and entered as judgment.  Court denied petitioner’s claim for prejudgment interest, because the arbitral award rejected petitioner’s request for interest on the costs award.

  • Trividia Health Inc. v. Nipro Corporation, No. 20-CV-08450-VEC (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2022)

    Court granted in part a motion for an entry of an order awarding attorney’s fees, costs, and interest following the award of a non-domestic arbitration award.  Court found that the petitioner was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and that its requests were mostly reasonable but declined to award costs associated with its use of a legal research search engine, which it found was an overhead law firm cost.

  • Corporacion AIC, SA, v. Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A., No. 20-13039 (11th Cir. May 27, 2022)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s determination that it could not vacate an arbitral award under the New York Convention on the exceeding ground under 9 USC § 10(a)(4) of the FAA.  Court of appeals noted that although it believes that the 11th Circuit precedent is out of line with Supreme Court precedent on this point, their hands are tied until an en banc panel takes up the issue and holds that they can review international arbitration awards based on Chapter 1 of the FAA under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention when the United States has primary jurisdiction.

  • State of Libya v. Strabag SE, No. 21-7128 (D.C. Cir. May 27, 2022)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm arbitral award relating to contract disputes arising out of unfished construction projects due to the force majeure declared after the onset of the Libyan Civil War.  Court of appeals held the FAA does not provide for modification of arbitration awards that require relitigating the merits.

  • Cheim and Read, LLC v. Faurschou Projects APS, No. 1:21-CV-06540-RA (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2022)

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award under the FAA and New York Convention where respondent did not oppose the petition.

  • Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Republic of Yemen, No. 19-MC-0547-RA (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2022)

    Court denied petitioners’ motion to compel post-judgment discovery in relation to collection on an ICC award against the Republic of Yemen from non-party, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“Fed”), regarding accounts held by non-party, the Central Bank of Yemen.  Court rejected the Fed’s argument that the FSIA precluded the information subpoena but agreed that the current subpoena was overbroad because it was not tailored to discovering information relevant to locating the judgment debtors’ assets.

  • Generali Espana de Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. Speedier Shipping, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-04080-RLM (E.D.N.Y. May 17, 2022)

    Court granted petitioner’s application to enforce two foreign arbitration awards, which had been assigned to it by its insured, under the New York Convention.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the arbitration clause was invalid and that it did not agree to or participate in the arbitration.

  • General Marine II, LLC v. Kelly, No. 3:21-CV-01425-W-DEB (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2022)

    Court confirmed the foreign arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Court found that the restrictions in travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic did not meet the public policy exception, and that respondent’s incapacity defense failed, as it was improperly directed at an inability to perform the underlying contract instead of incapacity preventing fair arbitration proceedings.

  • Uni-Top Asia Investment Ltd. v. Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration and Production Corp., No. 1:20-CV-01770-DLF (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2022)

    Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitral award.  Court found the venue was improper under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because petitioner failed to show that respondent did business in the district which is necessary for venue over an instrumentality or agency of a foreign state under 28 USC § 1391(f)(3).  Court denied petitioner’s motion for jurisdictional discovery as moot.

  • 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.

  • Aalfs Family Partnership v. GSL Holdings, S.A. de C.V., No. 5:21-CV-04038-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa Apr. 11, 2022)

    Court confirmed arbitration award and denied respondents’ motion to vacate, finding there was no misconduct or impartiality on the part of the arbitrators.  Court determined that the New York Convention grounds for vacatur applied, because the award was issued in Iowa between US citizens and a Mexican corporation, as well as the FAA grounds for vacatur, as the arbitration award was issued in the US and the petitioners were seeking enforcement in the United States.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

View All