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.

  • GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC, No. 18-1048 (U.S. June 1, 2020)

    Supreme Court an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in finding that the New York Convention does not preclude the application of domestic law permitting non-signatories to enforce an international arbitration agreement.  Consequently, Court found that a non-signatory French company could compel arbitration of an Alabama steel plant.

  • Wright v. NH Thornton Place, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-02063-DDC-GEB (D. Kan. June 1, 2020)

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed application for order confirming arbitration award finding that neither plaintiff nor the court expressed a reason to vacate the award under Section 10 of the FAA.

  • CPR Management, S.A. v. Devon Park Bioventures, L.P., No. 2:18-CV-01973-CMR (E.D. Pa. May 29, 2020)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denied respondents’ cross motion to vacate, finding that none of the grounds for vacating an award under Section 10 of the FAA applied.  Court found that applying the FAA was appropriate where: (1) the arbitration was brought in the United States and (2) there was no conflict between the New York Convention and the domestic FAA, reasoning that Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention allows awards to be “set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which that award was made.”  Court refused to impose additional prejudgment interest finding that such interest is not a penalty and that the good or bad faith of a losing party is not of dispositive significance.

  • Kahapea v. Pennymac Loan Services, LLC, No. 1:19-MC-00028-MV (D.N.M. May 29, 2020)

    Court dismissed without prejudice petitioner’s action to confirm an arbitration award, finding that petitioner failed to fulfill the jurisdiction requirements of Section 9 of the FAA when he did not demonstrate that the arbitration agreement explicitly or implicitly intended that the parties have a judgment entered on the arbitration award.

  • IMAX Corporation v. Giencourt Investments, S.A., No. 20-10491 (11th Cir. May 28, 2020)

    Court of appeals affirmed a district court decision denying appellant’s motion to vacate arbitration awards, finding that appellant failed to carry its burden to establish any defense under the New York Convention or prove that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its powers under the FAA.

  • Teco Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, No. 19-7153 (D.C. Cir. May 21, 2020) 

    Court of appeals denied motion for stay of enforcement of arbitral award, finding appellant did not satisfy the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal.

  • Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC v. George, No. 1:20-CV-00215-DDD-SKC (D. Colo. May 20, 2020) 

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and entered default judgment as defendant never moved to modify or vacate the award.

  • Bogard v. Blackstone, No. 5:20-CV-00080-XR (W.D. Tex. May 20, 2020) 

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court found that a state official sued in her official capacity was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and therefore, court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitral award.

  • Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 19-7127 (D.C. Cir. May 19, 2020) 

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitration award against the Government of Romania.  Court of appeals found the district court did not improperly resolve disputes of material fact and did not abuse its discretion by denying Romania’s request for an extension of time on the day its responsive filing was due.

  • Canfornav Inc. v. TDE Group USA Inc., No. 2:19-CV-11906-BAF-DRG (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2020) 

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention, where defendant had not responded to the motion.  Court also granted motion for summary judgment for breach of contract based on defendant’s failure to indemnify plaintiff.

  • Zhejiang Topoint Photovoltaic Co., Ltd. v. G&S Solar Installers, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-16578-KM-JBC (D.N.J. May 15, 2020)

    Court granted motion to confirm ICDR arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate the award, finding defendant was collaterally estopped from seeking to vacate the award because it had the opportunity to litigate the arbitrability issue and declined to do so.  Court held that the award must be confirmed pursuant to the FAA.

  • Elder v. Albertson’s, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-02464-K (N.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2020)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm an arbitration order awarding summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate.  Court found that plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitrator had exceeded his power by finding plaintiff’s submission to arbitration untimely were waived because they had not been raised to the arbitrator.  Court further found that the arbitrator’s order was “grounded in reason and fact.”

  • Three Brothers Trading, LLC v. Generex Biotechnology Corp., No. 1:18-CV-11585-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2020)

    Court granted respondent’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, finding that the award was not final and should be remanded when the arbitrator did not fully determine the issue of damages due to post-hearing evidentiary developments.

  • Entes Industrial Plants, Construction and Erection Contracting Co. Inc. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, No. 1:18-CV-02228-RC (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2020)

    Court confirmed petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award against a foreign sovereign that was not a party to the underlying arbitration, finding that: (1) a ministry that was a party to the arbitration was not entitled to a presumption of separateness from the foreign sovereign and (2) the ministry was acting as the foreign sovereign’s agent.

  • Machul v. State of Florida, No. 3:20-CV-00078-WHR-MJN (S.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2020)

    Magistrate judge recommended that plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award be denied, finding that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the FAA because plaintiff did not show that defendants signed an agreement to arbitrate.  Even if defendants agreed to arbitrate, court found that any confirmation of the alleged arbitral award would have to occur in the district where the award was made.

  • Texas Brine Company, L.L.C. v. American Arbitration Association, Incorporated, No. 18-31184 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of remand and grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court of appeals found the non-forum defendant was permitted to remove the case to federal court even when the other defendant was a citizen of the forum state and had yet to be properly served.  It found district court was correct to dismiss plaintiff’s challenge to the AAA, considering the relief requested, purported harm, and alleged wrongdoing showed that the claims were essentially an impermissible collateral attack on the arbitration award.

  • Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. Hyflo Limited Partnership, No. 2:19-CV-02054-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Apr. 7, 2020)

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, as defendant had not moved to vacate, modify or correct the award.

  • Catalina Holdings (Bermuda) Limited v. Muriel, No. 1:18-CV-05642 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 6, 2020) 

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm the arbitral award, holding the tribunal did not exceed its authority.  Court declined to determine whether a party may bring an action under Chapter 1 of the FAA to vacate an award issued by an arbitrator in a U.S. jurisdiction, since both the FAA and the New York Convention allow the defense that the tribunal exceeded its authority.  Court denied plaintiff’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions.

  • CBF Industria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc.., No. 1:13-CV-02581-PKC-JLC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2020)

    Court denied defendants’ motion to partially dismiss the third amended complaint seeking to enforce an arbitration award against defendants, finding the fraudulent transfer claim was not barred by the six-year limitations period because the amendment related back to the initial compliant.

  • OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, No. 19-20011 (5th Cir. Apr. 6, 2020) 

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order affirming $147 million arbitration award against plaintiff-appellant issued by the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.  Court of appeals held jurisdiction was proper under 9 U.S.C. § 205, and found the plaintiff-appellant’s arguments against recognition failed under the New York Convention, as the signatory had the capacity to bind defendant-appellee to the arbitration agreement, the plaintiff-appellant had waived its argument that the agreement was nonbinding by submitting to the arbitration, the award was not contrary to public policy, and manifest disregard is not a ground for nonrecognition of international arbitral awards.

  • Trina Solar US, Inc. v. Jasmin Solar PTY LTD, No. 17-572-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 2, 2020)

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and denial of a motion for limited discovery on the question of whether a party was bound by the arbitration clause at issue.  District court had found that a nonsignatory was bound to the arbitration agreement through agency theory.  The Second Circuit found that the nonsignatory could not be bound by the arbitration agreement because the contract explicitly excluded it as a party.

  • Morris v. Conifer Health Solutions LLC, No. 3:20-CV-05181-RJB (W.D. Wash. Apr. 2, 2020)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of racial discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreements were substantively and procedurally unconscionable and found that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute.

  • Satcomm v. Paypal, No. 5:19-MC-00010-MTT (M.D. Ga. Apr. 1, 2020)

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss and vacate the arbitration award, and awarded respondent attorney’s fees as sanctions for petitioner’s pursuit to confirm a fraudulent arbitration award.  Court found that the respondent met their burden of proving that the arbitration award was procured by fraud and that the entity Satcomm was a sham entity being run by an inmate.

  • Bunge S.A. v. Pacific Gulf Shipping (Singapore) PTE Ltd., No. 3:19-CV-00419-SB (D. Or. Mar. 31, 2020)

    Court entered a default judgment to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court found that it had quasi in rem jurisdiction because the award had been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, a London arbitration tribunal, and petitioner sought property within the jurisdiction of the District of Oregon in satisfaction of the judgment.  Court noted that intangible property could support quasi in rem jurisdiction in the state of Oregon.

  • Stumbo, Inc., v. Coin Data, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00168-GNS (W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2020)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss an action seeking declaratory relief that the arbitration agreement is not enforceable.  Court ignored plaintiff’s argument that the court did not have jurisdiction because defendants could not prove that the amount in controversy was greater than $75,000, finding that in an action seeking declaratory judgment that the parties are not required to arbitrate, the arbitration demand determines the amount in controversy.  Court further found that the arbitration agreements in question adopted the rules of the AAA, and thus they evinced the parties intent to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Finally, court found that it was immaterial under state law that the plaintiff was an assignee of the contract rather than an original party.

  • Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., v. The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:02-CV-00785-HSO-RHW (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2020)

    Court affirmed an arbitration award made in Brazil under Venezuelan arbitration law pursuant to the Panama Convention and the New York Convention.  Court found that it was a court with secondary jurisdiction and was therefore limited in its review to the grounds for refusal of enforcement provided in the conventions.  The court rejected the argument that the award should be vacated under Article V(1)(d) of the Panama Convention because the tribunal did not carry out the procedure in accordance with the terms of the parties agreement when it held the arbitration in Rio di Janeiro.  Court found that the tribunal applied Venezuelan arbitration law which permitted it to choose the location of the arbitration if the parties did not agree.

  • Salerno v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 1:15-CV-00516-LJV-LGF (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award related to violations of the TCPA.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that the award should be vacated because the arbitrators had manifestly disregarded the law by not following recent second circuit precedent, finding that the recent precedent was distinguishable.

  • Foresight Luxembourg Solar 1 S.A.R.L, v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:19-CV-03171-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020)

    Court granted respondent’s motion to transfer the action seeking to confirm an arbitration award to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) and referred all other pending motions to that court.  The award was rendered by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty. Petitioner sought to confirm it under the New York Convention while respondent argued that the motion should be stayed pending set aside proceedings in Sweden.  Court reasoned that venue transfer was appropriate because the D.D.C. was designated by congress as the dedicated venue for civil cases involving foreign states, and a transfer would promote judicial economy as there were parallel actions before the D.D.C.

  • Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. Barlow, No. 3:19-CV-00394-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss. Mar. 27, 2020)

    Court denied motion to vacate and affirmed the award.  Court found that there was no basis for vacating the award, rejecting the argument that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law because they did not follow one Mississippi case that favored the respondent in the arbitration.  Court further rejected the argument that an arbitrator’s comment about a state court judge leaving the bench soon was indicative of any bias against respondent.

  • International Energy Ventures Management v. United Energy Group, No. 4:17-CV-02262-LNH (S.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2020)

    Court granted motions to vacate two arbitral awards and to compel arbitration of claims relating to consulting services in connection with the purchase and sale of oil and gas assets in Pakistan.  Court held that the arbitrators acted outside of their authority in deciding whether plaintiff waived arbitration by taking action in the courts in connection with the dispute.  Court then decided that the plaintiff did not waive arbitration by taking steps in the courts and in turn granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.

  • First National Petroleum Corporation v. OAO Tyumenneftegaz, No. 4:19-CV-00097 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2020)

    Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitral award where responded was a Russian oil company subject to an agreement and joint venture in Russia to develop a Russian oil field.  Court found that notwithstanding respondent’s visits to Houston, the “hub of the parties’ activities” was outside of Texas.  Court further found that the New York Convention did not prevent the court from refusing to confirm an award for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

  • Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos De Chihuahua de C.V., No. 1:15-CV-02120-JLK (D. Colo. Mar. 25, 2019)

    Court granted petition to confirm foreign arbitral award, finding that the merits award had not been set aside in the seat of the arbitration, and that the damages award was binding and enforceable notwithstanding the ongoing challenge to the award in the seat of the arbitration. Court found that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of a stay against enforcement pending the challenge to the damages award. 

  • DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc. v. OrthoLA, Inc., No. 19-2765 (7th Cir. Mar. 18, 2020)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to stay action pending resolution of related California state court action. Court of appeals found that the district court had reasonably weighed various incommensurable factors in granting the stay of federal court proceedings, including its concern that DePuy was pursuing a second bite at the apple in federal court.

  • Simons v. Brown, No. 2:19-CV-05074-GAM (E.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2020)

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award, by which arbitrator granted summary judgment in favor of respondent after extensive discovery during the arbitration process. Court found that arbitrator heard all material and pertinent evidence, did not exceed her powers, and did not act in manifest disregard of the law.

  • PolyOne Corporation v. Westlake Vinyls, Inc., No. 5:19-CV00121-TBR (W.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2020)

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted motion to confirm, finding that the arbitral tribunal had not exceeded their power or decided the matter in manifest disregard of the law, nor was the arbitration award contrary to public policy.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Earth Construction Corp., No. 1:19-CV-05411-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2020)

    Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that there was at least a ‘barely colorable’ justification for each component of the arbitrator’s award. Court also granted claim for pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

  • Jolen, Inc. v. Kundan Rice Mills, Ltd., No. 1:19-CV-01296-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2020)

    Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that arbitrator’s decision was well-grounded in fact and law.

  • Climbzone, LLC v. Clifford Washington, No. 8:18-CV-02732-GJH (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2020)

    Court granted unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that, although plaintiff filed its complaint nearly three years after arbitration award was entered, defendant’s failure to appear resulted in its forfeiture any statute of limitations-based defense defendant may have had to the enforcement of the arbitration award, to the extent that one was available.

  • PNY Technologies, Inc. v. Netac Technology Co., Ltd., No. 2-13-CV-06799 (3d Cir. Feb. 10, 2020)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm arbitral award. Court rejected appellant’s contentions that arbitrator’s damages figure was completely irrational and that arbitration manifestly disregarded the law, finding that appellant had failed to meet the high standard for court intervention.

  • Trawick v. McCuthchen, No. 2:19-CV-01199-ACA (N.D. Ala. Jan. 29, 2020)

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied motion to vacate.  Court rejected respondent’s arguments that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority by denying a motion to dismiss claims which respondent argued were untimely, holding that even if the arbitrators made a mistake this is not a basis for vacatur.  Court further rejected respondent’s argument that participation of the chair of the arbitration panel in a “mock arbitration” biased him against respondent.

  • Teverbaugh v. Lima One Capital, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00159-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Jan. 28, 2020)

    Court denied an unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award awarded by SITCOMM Arbitration Association.  Court found that it could not confirm an award where petitioner had failed to attach the underlying agreement to arbitrate, as required by the FAA, since it could not determine if the award was made pursuant to a valid agreement.  Court further threatened petitioner with Rule 11 Sanctions if she submitted an agreement to arbitrate similar to one recently discussed in Imperial Industrial Supply Company v. Thomas, a case involving the same suspect arbitrators who issued petitioners award.

  • Laborers’ Local Union Nos. 472 & 172  v. Tarheel Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-20624-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2020)

    Court granted unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court found that pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9, it must confirm an arbitration award “[i]f the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration.” 

  • Capone v. Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company, No. 19-3760 (6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2020)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s granting of defendant’s motion to dismiss claims that had previously been resolved in arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff was seeking a vacatur of the previous arbitration award and that there were no grounds for vacating the award.

  • Novenergia II – Energy & Environment (SCA) v. The Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:18-CV-01148-TSC (D. D.C. Jan. 27, 2020)

    Court granted respondent’s motion to stay the proceedings of an action seeking to enforce a € 53.3 million SCC arbitral award issued against the Kingdom of Spain.  Court did not decide whether it had jurisdiction, holding that this question was dependent on a determination of whether the parties decided to arbitrate their dispute which, in turn, was currently the question before an appellate court in Sweden. Thus, without deciding whether the court had jurisdiction, the court determined that the principals of judicial economy and international comity weighed in favor of granting a stay.  Court further found that because it had not ruled on its own jurisdiction, it could not grant petitioner’s request that respondent be required to post a bond for the amount of the award under the New York Convention.

  • Summers Laboratories, Inc. v. Shionogi Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02754-AT (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2020)

    Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s petition to partially vacate the award with respect to attorney’s fees.  Court rejected respondent’s arguments that claims for attorney’s fees were not set forth in petitioner’s demand for arbitration, that the panel exceeded its authority, and that the agreement allowing for attorney’s fees had become void.  Court also awarded post-award pre-judgment interest at nine percent per annum.

  • Zandman v. Citibank, N.A., No. 7:18-CV-00791-NSR-PED (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020)

    Court confirmed defendant’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that there was “a barely colorable justification” for the outcome reached in the award and no other grounds for vacatur existed.

  • Dynacolor, Incorporated v. Razberi Technologies Incorporated, No. 19-10720 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020) 

    Court of appeals affirmed order confirming arbitration award, finding that defendant had failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded controlling law. Court further noted a circuit split as to whether manifest disregard was a justifiable grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award, but stated that it did not need to decide this issue as defendant had not met the rigorous standard for demonstrating manifest disregard of law.

  • Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund v. South City Motors, Inc., No. 18-16170 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020) 

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order finding that an arbitrator did not err in several legal and procedural determinations during the course of the arbitration. Court stated it would review arbitrators findings of law de novo, his findings of fact for clear error, and his award of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. Court affirmed each of the arbitrator’s findings.

  • DynaColor, Inc. v. Razberi Technologies, Inc., No. 19-10720 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020)

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award, finding that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law applicable to the merits of the dispute.

  • Soaring Wind Energy, LLC. v. Catic USA Incorporated, No. 18-11192 (5th Cir. Jan. 7, 2020)

    Fifth Circuit affirmed decision confirming arbitral award, finding that the arbitration panel was fairly constituted and did not exceed its authority. Court found that pursuant to arbitration agreement, arbitral panel had authority to order defendant’s divestiture from plaintiff LLC. Court further found that this divestiture order, which would defeat diversity jurisdiction, would not be effective until a judicial order fully enforced the award. Court also held that a foreign entity’s actions triggering breach of an agreement, and a finding that a foreign affiliate of a party was jointly and severally liable for damages awarded in an arbitral award provided a sufficient foreign nexus to trigger federal jurisdiction under the New York Convention. 

View All