Shearman & Sterling LLP | U.S. International Arbitration Digest | US International Arbitration
U.S. International Arbitration Digest
This links to the home page

US International Arbitration

A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.

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

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

  • 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.

  • CPR Management S.A. v. Devon Park Bioventures L.P., Nos. 20-2343 20-2344 (3d Cir. Nov. 22, 2021)

    Court affirmed the confirmation of an arbitration award by the district court.  Court found that the district court properly struck Defendant-appellant’s application for interpleader because it was procedurally not permitted under the FAA as a pleading, not a motion; that the district court properly confirmed the arbitration award because none of the four grounds for vacating an award applied; and that the court properly awarded prejudgment interest because Defendant-appellant’s argument that prejudgment interest should be eliminated failed to meet one of the three grounds for the modification of an arbitration award as the “promotion of justice” alone is insufficient.  Court also admonished Defendant-appellant for prematurely quitting the arbitration.

  • LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova, No. 14-CV-01921-CRC (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2021)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay confirmation proceedings, finding that the Europcar factors did not favor a stay, particularly considering the protracted nature of the proceedings.

  • Andes Petroleum Ecuadro Limited v. Occidental Exploration and Production Company, No. 21-CV-03930-AKH (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, finding that defendant failed to establish fraud, material partiality, denial of fundamental fairness, or that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority.

  • Jiangsu Beier Decoration Materials Co., Ltd. v. Angle World LLC, No. 2:21-CV-02845-AB (E.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2021)

    Court denied petition to confirm a CIETAC arbitration award.  Court found it could not enforce the award under the New York Convention, because there was not an agreement to arbitrate signed by both parties or shown in an exchange of letters, even though the CEITAC found a valid arbitration agreement under Chinese law and the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods.

  • Sutton v. DST Systems Inc., No. 21-CV-9052 (W.D. Mo. October 20, 2021)

    Court granted each plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award following AAA arbitration proceedings.  Court found that no special circumstances permitted the court to deny such a motion, considering factors like defendant’s inconsistent litigation and arbitration positions, judicial estoppel, and unfair advantage.

  • C.N. Romtehnica S.A. v. P.W. Arms Inc., No. 21-CV-00953-JCC (W.D. Wash. October 19, 2021)

    Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss a petition to enforce an arbitration award issued by a Romanian arbitrator.  Court found that the petition was not time-barred because petitioner filed its motion within three years of both the date the arbitrator sent the notice of the award and the date petitioner received the award. 

  • Global Gaming Philippines, LLC v. Enrique K. Razon, No. 21-CV-02655-LGS-SN (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2021)

    Court overruled defendants’ objections to magistrate judge’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel discovery of documents to support defendants’ anticipated defense against plaintiff’s attempt to enforce arbitration award, finding that discovery should be limited to avoid undermining the twin goals of arbitration: settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation.

  • Neptune Shipmanagement Services PTE v. Dahiya, No. 20-30776 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm an Indian arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Court of appeals held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the arbitral award, finding that an earlier remand to state court did not preclude the district court from hearing a separate action premised on new factual developments.  Court of appeals also found that the arbitration clause was enforceable and accepted state court’s judgment barring appellant from litigating against other parties.

  • Compania de Inversiones Mercantoles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuaua S.A.B de C.V., No. 15-CV-02120 (D. Colo. Sept 20, 2021)

    Court granted Motion to Compel in part and denied it in part in post-judgment discovery for a party seeking to confirm an arbitral award.  Court held that petitioner was entitled to an order compelling respondent to answer interrogatories but was not entitled leave to serve an unlimited number of additional interrogatories on a rolling basis until respondent complied with the judgment.

  • Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. et al., No. 16-CV-02547-RM-KMT (D. Colo. Sept. 3, 2021)

    Court denied defendant’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, finding that defendant failed to meet its burden of showing that the court should grant relief.  Additionally, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for contempt, finding that only part of a confirmed arbitration award was violated.

  • Baker Hughes Services International, LLC v. Joshi Technologies International, Inc., No. 20-CV-00626-TCK-SH (N.D. Okla. Sept. 2, 2021)

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that petitioner complied with the requirements of the New York Convention.  Court found that respondent failed to show that the arbitration agreement was invalid or that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

  • Top Jet Enterprises Ltd. v. Skyblueocean Ltd. and Jet Midwest Group, LLC., No. 4:21-CV-00096-FJG (W.D. Mo. Aug. 31, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm and enforce an HKIAC arbitral award under the FAA.  Court rejected defendants’ argument that the petition should be denied because plaintiff could have filed a single confirmation proceeding instead of separate proceedings for the merits judgment and the cost judgment.  Court also found no support for defendants’ argument that the tribunal failed to consider the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees or that the amount of the fees was against public policy.

  • Koch Minerals SARL v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:17-CV-02559-ZMF (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and confirmed the ICSID Award pursuant to 22 USC § 1650a.  Court concluded that defendant presented no grounds to contest the authenticity of the award nor raised concerns about the award’s finality in light of the annulment proceedings.

  • Lin v. Ant Bicycle Inc., No. 1:21-CV-10510-GAO (D. Mass. August 17, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment in relation to an arbitration award against defendants and ordered defendants to pay the award and to transfer all interests in the company to plaintiffs.

  • Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-01360-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2021)

    Court granted in part and denied in part intervenors’ motion to compel discovery, finding the intervenors were entitled to discovery as to respondent’s assets and relationships in relation to recovering amounts due under a foreign arbitration award but modified intervenors’ requests.  Court granted respondent’s motion for a protective order in part with regard to specific interrogatories and requests for production, which it found to be overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to reveal executable assets.

  • Heirs of Khalid Abu Al-Qarqani, et al v. Chevron Corporation, et al, No. 19-17074 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2021)

    Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a petition to enforce a foreign arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court found that only the five heirs named on the notice of appeal sufficiently appealed the district court’s order such that the Court had jurisdiction and that the Court did have subject matter jurisdiction, but that the district court should have dismissed the petition on the merits.   Court concluded that, while there was a binding agreement to arbitrate between the parties, the heirs could not establish a right to enforce the arbitration clause and, even if they could, by the time they obtained interest in the land, the rights had been assigned to another party thus Chevron’s predecessor was no longer bound by the arbitration agreement.

  • MarkDutchCo 1 B.V., et al v. Zeta Interactive Corp, No. 19-3845 (3rd Cir. Aug. 10, 2021)

    Court affirmed confirmation of an arbitral award in a dispute arising out of an interest purchase agreement between the parties.  Court found that defendant did not meet the “heavy burden” imposed by the FAA and the New York Convention because the parties bargained for an IPA that committed to resolving all disputes, procedural and substantive, before an arbitrator and reaffirmed that commitment when engaging in arbitration.

  • JTH Tax LLC dba Liberty Tax Service v. Pitcairn Franchise Development, LLC., No. 21-CV-00135-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va. Jul. 27, 2021)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate.  Court ruled that the alleged errors made by the arbitrator were unfounded and did not support vacatur.

  • Zitan Technologies, LLC v. Yu, No. 3:18-CV-00395-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. July 16, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award and granted in part their motion for attorneys fees and costs incurred in the process of acquiring preliminary and permanent injunctions.  Court found that attorneys fees incurred in the process of acquiring a permanent injunction in the arbitral forum were barred by contract provision stating that the parties shall bear their own attorneys fees in arbitration.

  • The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v. Baldwin, No. 2:20-CV-00195-CRK (D. Idaho July 15, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiff’s third motion to amend the complaint to enforce a PCA and ICSID award issued against defendants in order to add a new party and to plead causes of action relating to fraudulent transfers under Idaho law.  Court found the proposed amendments would not be prejudicial and that there was no undue delay.

  • Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:20-CV-00129-RC (D.D.C. July 13, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion pursuant to 28 USC § 1610(c) to attach the property of a foreign state located in the US, finding four months was a reasonable period of time since the arbitral award judgment and considering that respondent failed to proffer evidence of efforts to pay the judgment.  Court also granted plaintiff’s motion to register the judgment in any judicial district under 28 USC § 1963, concluding that good cause exists since respondent lacks assets in the District of Columbia but retains assets elsewhere.

  • Hamilton v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, No. 1:21-CV-20906-JEM (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2021)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate ICDR arbitral award pursuant to § 10 of the FAA on grounds of evident partiality, finding that grounds for vacatur under the FAA were not applicable to the non-domestic commercial arbitration and that the plaintiff failed to provide any defenses against enforcement under the New York Convention.  Court further found that even if the FAA applied, plaintiff had not met the standard to establish evident partiality.  Court confirmed the award but denied defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, since the plaintiff had marshalled some support for its position, although it was weak.

  • Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A., No. 1:19-CV-25217-DPG (S.D. Fla. July 8, 2021)

    Court granted motion to vacate the final default judgment granting petition to confirm arbitration award because service of process was insufficient under 28 USC § 1608.  Since petitioner failed to serve a summons, court found that it did not comply with the requirements for service on an instrumentality of a foreign state and rejected petitioner’s contention that service was excused by actual notice.

  • University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo LLC, No. 16-CV-10150-ADB (D. Mass. Jul. 7, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the damages award and recognition of an English court’s judgment awarding costs to petitioner in connection with an arbitration in England.  Court found the damages, which had been divided into subcategories during bifurcated proceedings, were not time-barred for confirmation because the clock did not begin to run until the last award.  Court also held defendants misinterpreted the “revenue rule” which is not applicable here, because the Court was merely enforcing a decision rather than interpreting English law.

  • Prodigy Finance Limited v. Funsho, No. 19-CV-06458-WFK-RER (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2021)

    Court confirmed petitioner’s arbitration award and granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.  Court found respondent failed to respond to the arbitration proceedings and to the Court, and that the record in the case supports the arbitrator’s decision.

  • Jiajing (Beijing) Tourism Co., Inc. v. Aeroballoon USA, Inc., No. 20-CV-11313-MBB (D. Mass. July 1, 2021)

    Court denied petitioner’s motion for a separate judgment against respondent to recognize and confirm a foreign arbitration award under Rule 54(b).  Court found there was a final judgment, but there was a just reason for delay because respondents may have to duplicate their efforts regarding discovery in a separate proceeding and could be forced to litigate in two forums if Rule 54(b) certification were allowed.

  • Infrared Environmental Infrastructure GP Limited v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 20-CV-00817-JDB (D.D.C. June 29, 2021)

    Court denied the Kingdom of Spain’s motion to dismiss action to enforce an ICSID arbitral award and plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment without prejudice, finding that its ruling would directly and prematurely contradict the judgment of the ICSID tribunal, pending the resolution of ICSID annulment proceedings.  Court also granted Spain’s motion to stay pending resolution of the annulment proceedings, holding that the balance of hardships favored a stay.  Court also denied plaintiffs’ request that Spain be ordered to provide a bond to secure the ICSID award, finding that such an order would undermine the court’s decision not to rule on the validity of the ICSID award.

  • Gater Asset Limited v. Ao Moldovagaz, No. 19-3550 (2d. Cir. Jun. 22, 2021)

    Court vacated district court’s judgment in petitioner’s renewal action and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction but affirmed district court’s original default judgment in dispute about Moldovan gas debts.  Court found it unnecessary to vacate the earlier default judgment because the respondents had relied heavily on facts that postdated the default judgment when asking the court to vacate for lack of jurisdiction.

  • Government of the Cook Island v. Hubbart, No. 21-CV-21395-FAM (S.D. Fl. May 28, 2021)

    Court granted petition to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award because respondent failed to file a response to the petition.  Court found petitioner satisfied the statutory conditions for recognition and enforcement of the award and respondent failed to provide any response to establish its burden that the New York Convention’s grounds for refusal had been met.

View All