Newly Released Decisions
Venezuela US SRL v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 22-CV-03822-JMC (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2025)
Court granted petition to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitration award against the Republic of Venezuela. Court ordered a final judgment to be entered and for Venezuela to pay the amount awarded, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, and legal fees.
Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 20-CV-01708-LLA (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2025)
Court accepted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, denying Spain’s motion to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and granting plaintiff’s alternative motion for summary judgment. Court found that the ICSID award was entitled to “full faith and credit” where it could ensure the issuing tribunal had subject matter and personal jurisdiction, the award was authentic, and the enforcement order was consistent with the award. Court further found enforcing the award would not violate the foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine, reasoning that Spain’s reading of the doctrine would run afoul to the ICSID Convention to which Spain was a willing signatory. Court further determined that forum non conveniens was inapplicable to proceedings to confirm a foreign arbitral award.
Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 20-CV-00817-JDB (D.D.C. Aug. 13, 2025)
Court denied Spain’s motion for summary judgment and granted petitioner’s motion to recognize and enforce the ICSID arbitration award. Court found that it must give ICSID awards the same “full faith and credit” it would give to a state court judgment. Therefore, court is bound by res judicata to respect the decision of the issuing court, including on issues of jurisdiction. Additionally, court found that there is no comity exception to its exacting obligations under the ICSID Convention and 22 USC § 1650a.
Samsung Electronics Latinoamerica (Zona Libre) S.A., v. MV Communications Group, Inc. (Panama), No. 1:24-CV-24215-BB (S.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2025)
Court granted petitioner’s petition to enforce an arbitration award, finding petitioner established the jurisdictional prerequisites to enforcement, and respondents did not assert any of the seven exclusive defenses to enforcement in Article V of the Panama Convention.
Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:18-CV-01753-LLA (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2025)
Court denied Spain’s motion to dismiss action seeking to confirm an ICSID arbitration award. Court found it had subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to the FSIA’s arbitration exception. Court held an ICSID award is entitled to the full faith and credit of US courts where the court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction, the award is authentic, and an enforcement order is consistent with the arbitration award, and the foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine is inapplicable where international comity favors the enforcement of ICSID awards.
Redes Andinas de Comunicaciones S.R.L. v. The Republic of Peru, No. 22-CV-03631-RC (D.D.C. July 22, 2025)
Court denied respondent Programa Nacional Telecomunicaciones’ motion to dismiss claim seeking to enforce arbitration award. Court found subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception and that the Peruvian government instrumentality was not a “person” under the Due Process clause so no minimum contacts with the US were required for personal jurisdiction. Court also stated that technical and procedural defects, including failing to include the original agreement to arbitrate in the petition and including the wrong address for service of process, were not enough to disturb the award.
Aadi Bioscience, Inc. v. EOC Pharma (Hong Kong) Ltd., No. 24-CV-09412-JGK (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2025)
Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award under the New York Convention, finding that there were no grounds to vacate the award.
Subway International B.V. v. Subway Russia Franchising Company, LLC, No. 24-1702 (2d Cir. May 12, 2025)
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of two arbitration awards. Court of appeals found that plaintiff had timely petitioned for confirmation of the awards, and dismissed arguments that the district court’s orders were contradictory and substantively different. Court of appeals found defendants misunderstood the district court’s first order, which confirmed the award and only remanded a specific issue to the arbitrator. Court of appeals found that the second order was proper because it did not affect the meaning of the first order, and because the district court had correctly concluded that the arbitrator had not acted outside the scope of her delegated duty.