Newly Released Decisions
Molecular Dynamic, Ltd. v. Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited, No. 24-2209 (2d Cir. July 2, 2025)
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of a petition to vacate an arbitral award issued by a foreign tribunal, concluding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Chapter 2 of the FAA. Court of appeals held that a vacatur action directed at a foreign award does not fall under the New York Convention, and therefore that 9 USC § 203 does not supply subject matter jurisdiction to the district court. Court of appeals concluded that the New York Convention “specifically envisions” that vacatur proceedings be decided in the country in which or under the law of which the award was made.
Ma v. Fang, No. 8:21-CV-00441-MCS-ADS (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2025)
Court denied respondent’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion for relief from a judgment confirming a foreign arbitral award, declining to consider newly proffered evidence. Noting that no authority in the award’s primary jurisdiction had annulled the decision, the court concluded that revisiting the merits would undermine international comity, contravene the New York Convention, and raise other prudential concerns.
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 23–1201 (U.S. June 5, 2025)
Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision by the Ninth Circuit, which held that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction to confirm an arbitral award in a dispute involving a foreign state. Court clarified that, under the FSIA, personal jurisdiction does not require a minimum contacts analysis. Instead, the Court held that personal jurisdiction exists, if one of the exceptions to immunity enumerated in the FSIA applies and the plaintiff effectuated proper service.
Shanghai Liyu Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. v. Brite Lite Tribe, LLC, No. 24-CV-80690-RLR (S.D. Fla. June 4, 2025)
Court issued an indicative ruling that it would amend and clarify its prior order confirming an arbitral award, if the Eleventh Circuit returned jurisdiction to the court. Court found that its original order lacked a specific statement of the monetary amounts awarded, which could impede enforcement. However, the court’s authority to grant relief was limited by the pending appeal at the Eleventh Circuit.
Eletson Holdings Inc. and Eletson Corporation v. Levona Holdings Ltd., No. 1:23-CV-07331- LJL (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2025)
Court granted petition for antisuit injunction staying foreign proceedings to enforce an arbitral award until the US court resolves the pending action. Court found that the foreign actions sought to circumvent a related bankruptcy confirmation order and ongoing US proceedings regarding the arbitral award’s validity. Court held that the parties in the foreign and US actions are substantially the same, and that the US case will be dispositive of the foreign proceedings.
Reel Games Inc. v. Euro Game Technology, Ltd., No. 0:24-CV-60713-DSL (S.D. Fla. June 02, 2025)
Court granted motion to compel arbitration to be commenced under the Court of Arbitration at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce. Court held that the parties’ agreements contained valid and enforceable arbitration clauses, and that the defendant’s claims fell within the scope of the broad clauses. Court further rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration clauses do not survive the termination of the parties’ agreements.
AAK USA, Inc. v. Integrity Ingredients Corporation, No. 1:25-CV-01727-JGK (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2025)
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award pursuant to 9 USC § 9, holding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact. Court found that its role in reviewing an award is limited—the award is to be confirmed even if there is a “barely colorable justification” for the decision.
Madison Pacific Trust Limited v. Groza, 25-CV-00642-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2025)
Court granted petitioner’s application to serve respondents via alternative means under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 for purposes of initiating proceedings to confirm an arbitral award. Court found that petitioner had demonstrated that respondents’ physical whereabouts were unknown and could not be ascertained with reasonable diligence, and serving respondents by email was reasonably calculated to satisfy due process requirements. Court also directed delivery of service papers to addresses listed on court filings in parallel proceedings.
J&J Empire Express, Inc. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 1:24-CV-01200-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2025)
Court denied petition to vacate an arbitration award and confirmed the award, holding that petitioner had not demonstrated that the arbitrator committed manifest disregard for the law in issuing the award.
Shanghai Liyu Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. v. Brite Lite Tribe, LLC, 9:24-CV-80690-RLR (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2025)
Court granted a petition to confirm an arbitral award under the New York Convention based on the court’s factual findings following an evidentiary hearing that petitioner properly served respondent and legal conclusion that the underlying award dealt with matters within the scope of the arbitration.
Webuild S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, 1:21-CV-02464-RBW (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2025)
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and confirmed an ICSID arbitral award, holding that it had personal jurisdiction over defendant, subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and the award was authentic.