Newly Released Decisions
Sucafina NA Inc. v. Green Coffee Company Holdings, LLC, No. 25-CV-05752-JLR (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2025)
Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration despite the fact that respondent did not sign the arbitration agreement, ruling that the arbitration agreement could be enforced based on agency theory. Court concluded that petitioner’s communications with respondent created the appearance that respondent was acting as an agent for its parent company, the signatory to the contract, where respondent’s sales director acted as the primary contact with petitioner in the negotiation of the contract, and “expressly stated” that it would have authority to sign off on any deal.
Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company, LLC v. Salzer Electronics, Ltd, No. 25-CV-7279-CM (Dec. 16, 2025) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2025)
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that whether defendants waived their right to arbitration because of a pending Pennsylvania action, and whether arbitration is pre-mature for failing to engage in conditions precedent to arbitration, are questions of arbitrability to be resolved by the arbitrator.
Viatris Healthcare (Pty) Ltd. v. Sedia Biosciences Corp., No. 25-CV-8790-AS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025)
Court confirmed petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award, together with post-award interest and post-judgment interest. The parties only disputed the amount of post-award interest owed. Court determined that while the award provided for post-award interest payments until the date payment was made in full, federal law governs post-judgment interest, and the Second Circuit has held that the federal statute applies equally to judgments confirming an arbitration award, even if the award itself sets a different interest rate. Accordingly, court determined post-award interest would be made until the date of the court’s judgment, and the post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 shall be made until respondent pays the judgment.
Paul Philippe of Romania v. Christie’s Inc., No. 25-CV-1151-LLS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2025)
Court determined Romania was not immune from suit under the FSIA because the successor exception applied where Romania’s interest in the painting at issue was based on succession. Court rejected Romania’s argument that the exception should be applied narrowly only to U.S. estate proceedings disposing of a decedent’s property, reasoning that the language of the FSIA is broad, calling for the successor exception to be applicable in any case.
Waked v. Kerr, No. 24-2064 (10th Cir. Dec. 17, 2025)
Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision in part and remanded with instructions to confirm the arbitration award. The district court concluded that the FINRA panel exceeded its authority by deciding on claims which it lacked jurisdiction because such claims against two of the respondents were subject to a separate arbitration agreement. Court of appeals reversed, reasoning that no objection was raised to the tribunal’s jurisdiction during the course of the arbitration, rather parties “vigorously participated” in the arbitration of such claims, and therefore, have therefore waived any objection at the confirmation stage.
Verint Americas Inc. v. Terminix Consumer Services, No. 25-CV-4485 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 17, 2025)
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court first determined that it could decide questions of arbitrability where defendant did not argue that the questions should be decided by an arbitrator until its reply submission. Court found that the dispute fell within the parties’ agreement. Court further rejected plaintiff’s arguments that fee disputes were excluded from the arbitration agreement and that defendant disclaimed the applicability of the parties’ agreement.
Hoffheins v. Turnkey Logistics, LLC, No. 25-CV-01286 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 2025)
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to bear arbitration fees. Court found that parol evidence was required to interpret the ambiguous arbitration agreement, and after a review of the evidence, court determined that the parties did not intend for the agreement to cover arbitration expenses.