Newly Released Decisions
Victoria NYC I Inc. v. DGN Pharmacy Inc., No. 1:25-CV-00975-KAM-MMH (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2025)
Court ordered plaintiff to show cause as to why, assuming a valid and signed version of the parties’ agreement exists, an action should not be dismissed in light of the mandatory arbitration clause.
Deutsche Telekom, A.G. v. Republic of India, No. 24-7081 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025)
Court of appeals found the district court properly denied India’s motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity and forum non conveniens but improperly declined to consider India’s substantive defenses. Court of appeal rejected India’s sovereign immunity defense, finding its argument that the dispute did not involve an investor or investment covered by the Germany-India bilateral investment treaty was a merits issue, and therefore did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception. Court of appeals determined forum non conveniens was inapplicable given the international character of the dispute and the underlying purpose of international arbitration to retain enforceable awards across jurisdictions. Court of appeals found questions of arbitrability could be reviewed in this narrow circumstance, where the bilateral investment treaty expressly incorporates background principles of German and Indian law in confirmation proceedings. Finally, court of appeals found India raised a colorable immunity defense, and any additional merits defenses based on a national security exception and fraud should be heard on remand.
Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., No. 24-7161 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025)
Court of appeals concluded that Venezuela unlawfully expropriated the entire business of its subsidiary by taking it over and rendering Helmerich’s ownership interest useless. Court of appeals further rejected PDVSA’s argument that the Fifth Amendment bars the exercise of personal jurisdiction, as the Fifth Amendment does not offer protection to foreign states. Lastly, court of appeals concluded that the act-of-state doctrine is inapplicable here where the Second Hickenlooper Amendment bars application of the act-of-state doctrine in cases where a claim of title or property rights are asserted by a party in violation of international law.
Matthews International Corporation v. Tesla, Inc., No. 25-CV-03325-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2025)
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross-motion to vacate the award, holding that the arbitrator acted within the scope of his powers within the meaning of 9 USC § 10(a)(4). Court found that the arbitrator did not refuse to enforce a clause in the contract that gave rise to the dispute but rather refused to enforce respondent’s interpretation of the term.
Ceratosaurus Investors LLC v. Williams, No. 25-CV-04378-VM (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2025)
Court confirmed petitioners’ arbitration award and granted their request for pre- and post-judgment interest in part, with modifications to the requested post-judgment interest rate, but declined to award attorneys’ fees and costs. Court found that petitioners met their burden for confirmation of the award because (1) the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority; (2) parties had a valid arbitration agreement; and (3) parties showed there was no dispute of material fact. Court further said it had discretion to award pre-judgment interest and that petitioners were entitled to post-judgment interest at the statutory rate set by 28 USC § 1961.
Sudakow v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc., No. 24-1988 (2d Cir. Aug. 27, 2025)
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff lacked inquiry notice of subsequent terms containing the arbitration provision and that plaintiff’s submission of payments did not constitute assent to the terms.
Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd., No. 24-CV-09918-VSB-VF (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2025)
Magistrate judge granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that under Delaware law, the broad language of the arbitration provision entitled issues of contractual rights and performance to be resolved by an arbitrator. Magistrate judge concluded that plaintiffs’ claims related to contractual rights arising from the partnership agreement that contained the arbitration clause.