Newly Released Decisions
Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, 1:23-CV-02701-RC (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2024)
Court granted petitioner’s petition to enforce an arbitration award against the Kingdom of Spain, holding (1) that it had jurisdiction to do so under the FSIA, (2) Spain was not entitled to a stay pending resolution of related proceedings, (3) the award was entitled to full faith and credit, and (4) the defenses of forum non conveniens, the act of state doctrine, the foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine, and the broader principles of international comity doctrine did not apply.
LXA Aviation Leasing 3 Ltd. v. Honeywell Aerospace Trading, Inc., No. 24-CV-04080 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2024)
Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, rejecting respondent’s argument that there was no Article III case or controversy at-issue where the award had not been fully satisfied.
UpHealth Holdings Inc. v. Glocal Healthcare Systems Private Limited, No. 1:24-CV-03778 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2024)
Court granted in part petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitral award arising under a share purchase agreement, finding that most respondents waived their contract and damages based arguments when they failed to raise them before the arbitral tribunal. Court also held that the award should be confirmed as to most respondents because the arbitral tribunal properly interpreted the underlying share purchase agreement. However, the court held that one respondent preserved a legal argument that was properly before the court and vacated the award as to that respondent, reasoning that the tribunal premised its finding as to that respondent on a fact that was not alleged or in evidence.
Panamax International Shipping Company Ltd. v. AAT Global Ltd., No. 1:24-CV-03512-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2024)
Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitral award issued after respondents failed to appear at the arbitration and declined to vacate the award because respondents did not show that any provision in Article V of the New York Convention applied, or that the award was procured through corruption, fraud, or undue means.
Redes Andinas de Comunicaciones S.R.L. v. The Republico of Peru, No. 1:22-CV-03631-RC (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2024)
Following adverse arbitral awards, two respondents—the Republic of Peru and a Peruvian government ministry—failed to appear before the court in response to petitioner’s petition to enforce its arbitral awards, and the court held that the arbitration exception to the FSIA applied such that entry of default judgment and enforcement of the awards was proper. Court set aside the default judgment of a third respondent—another Peruvian governmental entity—upon finding good cause to do so.
GPGC Limited v. The Government of the Republic of Ghana, No. 1:24-CV-00169-JEB (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2024)
Court held that petitioner was entitled to attorneys’ fees in connection with an arbitral award the court previously confirmed upon finding that the underlying contract allowed for the prevailing party to receive fees, and respondent acted in bad faith. Court awarded fees pursuant to the Laffey Matrix, a commonly employed schedule of attorneys’ fees, which resulted in fees lower than petitioner requested.
D.C. Keenan & Associates v. Wisell, No. 1:23-CV-08685-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2024)
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitral award in connection with a dispute over attorneys’ fees between two law firms and denied respondents’ cross-motion to vacate or modify the award. Court found that respondent was a signatory to the underlying agreement because one of the partners (who was also a respondent) signed on behalf of his law firm, and respondents were bound by the arbitration clause. Court also found the arbitration to have been fundamentally fair because respondents were given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and parties conducted a full and fair arbitration hearing.
Barton v. Zhang, No. 1:23-CV-08536-LJL (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2024)
Court granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment confirming an arbitral award pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention. Court found that the dispute and award fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and identified no ground upon which it could refuse to confirm any part of the award.