Newly Released Decisions
Spineway SA v. Strategos Group, LLC, No. 24-1584 (3d Cir. Mar. 18, 2025)
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying petition to confirm a foreign arbitration award because the arbitrator was not selected in accordance with the parties’ agreement. Court of Appeals found that, despite a reference to the non-existent Geneva ICC in their agreement, the parties intended the ICC, not the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI), to select the arbitrator and intended for the ICC rules to govern. Since the arbitrator was selected under SCAI rules, in contravention of the parties’ agreement, the district court properly refused to confirm the award under the New York Convention.
CSRS, LLC v. Element 25 Limited, No. 24-CV-00358-RLB (M.D. La. Mar. 18, 2025)
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay pending arbitration, following the Fifth Circuit precedent that an agreement’s provision that a dispute “may” be resolved by arbitration is not permissive, but rather makes arbitration mandatory if one of the parties to the contract requests it. Court also found that any dispute regarding arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator on the basis that the agreement incorporated by reference the LCIA rules. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration clause was null and void, finding that the FAA pre-empted the Louisiana statute that would have otherwise prohibited the arbitration from occurring in London.
Zhongtie Dacheng (Zhuhai) Inv. Mgmt. Co. Ltd. v. Yan, No. 24-736 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2025)
Court of Appeals vacated district court judgment granting petition to enforce award against respondents under the New York Convention, explaining the “district court failed to show its work” in making the required factual findings to support confirmation of the award, including whether the agreement containing the arbitration clause was forged.
Wang v. Haitou Global (Cayman) Inc., No. 24-CV-07781-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2025)
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims asserted against it by plaintiff because plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court denied cross-motion to compel arbitration against non-signatory defendants, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments based on alter-ego and direct benefits theories.
Spire Global Subsidiary, Inc. v. NorthStar Earth & Space, Inc., No. 24-CV-08434-JHR-SLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2025)
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the broad scope of the relevant arbitration clause covered the disputes plaintiff had filed in the litigation. Court also found that the dispute resolution clause in a second relevant contract did not displace the arbitration clause in the first relevant contract because the arbitration clause provided a more limited means for resolving disputes arising out of the contracts.
Flintlock Construction Services, LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company & Catlin Specialty Insurance Company, No. 24-791 (2d Cir. Feb. 21, 2025)
Court of Appeals affirmed district court’s denial of petitioner’s request to vacate arbitration award. Court of Appeals found the arbitration panel did not exceed its authority in its interpretation of the underlying agreement and that the panel’s decision was not irrational because it reflected the “plain meaning” of the underlying agreement.