A collection of the most recent U.S. international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.
-
Victoria NYC I Inc. v. DGN Pharmacy Inc., No. 1:25-CV-00975-KAM-MMH (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2025)10/08/2025
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)10/03/2025
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)10/03/2025
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)10/01/2025
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)10/01/2025
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.
-
One World Filter Corporation v. Koslow Technologies Corporation, No. 21-CV-10769-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 24, 2025)09/24/2025
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate and granted defendants’ cross-motion to confirm an arbitration award, holding that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its authority or manifestly disregard the law under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10, in awarding damages for unpaid license fees and rejecting all of plaintiff’s breach of contract claims. Court also rejected arguments that the award violated public policy.
-
Pott v. World Capital Properties Ltd., No. 24-13071 (11th Cir. Sep. 24, 2025)09/24/2025
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s confirmation of a foreign arbitration award, holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that enforcement against a non-signatory was proper where the non-signatory had consented in writing to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability. Court of appeals found that by signing the Terms of Reference, the defendant-appellant was bound by the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction and the resulting award under the New York Convention.
-
Marseille-Kliniken AG v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea, No. 23-7169 (D.C. Cir. Sep. 23, 2025)09/23/2025
Court of appeals vacated the district court’s confirmation of an arbitral award, holding that the district court erred by deferring to the arbitrator’s interpretation of a contractual dispute resolution clause regarding exhaustion of local remedies. Court of appeals remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to determine in the first instance the applicable law and proper interpretation of the clause.
-
ACF Renewable Energy Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, No. 24-CV-01715-DLF (D.D.C. Sep. 22, 2025)09/22/2025
Court denied Bulgaria’s motion to dismiss and granted the petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, enforcing an ICSID arbitration award under the Energy Charter Treaty. Court held that it had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction under the FSIA’s exception for arbitral awards, 28 U.S.C. § 1605; rejected Bulgaria’s defenses based on EU law, comity, and forum non conveniens; and found no grounds to stay or refuse enforcement of the award.
-
Transamerica Ship Holdings, Ltd. v. Marine Control, Inc., No. 1:25-CV-02827-JAV (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 15, 2025)09/15/2025
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and awarded pre- and post-judgment interest. Respondents failed to respond to the petition to confirm, so Court independently found that petitioner met its burden of demonstrating no material issue of fact remained, including that none of the exclusive grounds for vacatur under the New York Convention were applicable.
-
County of Middlesex, New Jersey v. Underwriters at Lloyds, London, No. 3:25-CV-01390-MAS-TJB (D.N.J. Sep. 15, 2025)09/15/2025
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed litigation, finding the parties agreed to a valid arbitration agreement and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement where the arbitration clause specifically provided for indemnity disputes to be brought to arbitration, without exception.
-
Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Jai Sai Baba LLC, No. 2:23-CV-03360-JMG (E.D. Pa. Sep. 11, 2025)09/11/2025
Court granted petitioner’s application to confirm arbitration award and denied respondents’ motion to vacate. Court found that the parties each had an adequate opportunity to present their case, and the decision to deny respondents’ cross-examination of one witness did not amount to an unfair hearing. Further, court found that respondents’ claim that the arbitrator was biased was unfounded, and the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in issuing an award at a later date than anticipated.
-
Sudakow v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc., No. 24-1988 (2d Cir. Aug. 27, 2025)08/27/2025
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)08/25/2025
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.
-
Riverside Academy, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 2:22-CV-04395-WBV-JVM (E.D. La. Aug. 20, 2025)08/20/2025
Court lifted stay pending arbitration finding where an arbitration had been ongoing for over three years, such delay amounted to an indefinite period of time and in effect infringed upon the plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Louisiana constitution to an adequate remedy without unreasonable delay.
-
Venezuela US SRL v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 22-CV-03822-JMC (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2025)08/14/2025
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)08/14/2025
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)08/13/2025
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)08/12/2025
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)08/12/2025
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.
-
The Resource Group International Limited v. Chishti, No. 1:25-CV-01021-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2025)08/11/2025
Court denied respondent’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and request for a stay of enforcement of the judgment. Court found Rule 60(b) only permits respondent to seek relief against a court judgment, not the underlying arbitration award, and in any event, respondent failed to meet the requirements of Rule 60(b). Court further reasoned that respondent failed to show a stay of enforcement was warranted finding considerations of international comity were inapplicable here.
-
financialright claims GmbH v. Burford German Funding LLC, No. 1:24-CV-00929-CFC (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2025)08/11/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the parties entered into a binding arbitration agreement under which questions of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator and plaintiff had not specifically challenged the validity of the delegation provision itself.
-
Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc., No. 4:24-CV-00186-ALM (E.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2025)08/07/2025
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court first determined that the parties’ contract contained a choice of law provision under which Delaware law would govern whether the parties’ entered into a binding arbitration agreement. Court then held that there was no arbitration agreement where the parties’ contract called for an expert, rather than an arbitrator, to determine a narrow scope of issues relating to earnout calculations.
-
Sanchez v. Adverit International LLC, No. 25-CV-21144 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2025)07/31/2025
Court granted motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration of applicant’s 28 USC § 1782 dispute, finding § 3 of the FAA allows a court to stay “any suit or proceeding” brought in a US court so long as the issue in the proceeding is referable to arbitration. Further, court found it had jurisdiction to compel arbitration of the § 1782 dispute under § 4 of the FAA, so long as there was an agreement in writing governing a commercial dispute and at least one party is a non-citizen to the United States. As each element was met here, court compelled arbitration.
-
Greentree Financial Group, Inc. v. Chijet Motor Company, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-06415-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2025)07/30/2025
Court converted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to a motion to compel arbitration and stayed litigation of defendants’ counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty. Court found that the parties were required to arbitrate the breach of fiduciary duty claim, as any fiduciary duty owed by the plaintiff to the respondent was rooted in the Services Agreement, which contained an arbitration clause.
-
Valentini v. Stonex Financial, Inc., No. 4:24-CV-02902 (S.D. Tex. July 29, 2025)07/29/2025
Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss declaratory judgment and motion to confirm arbitration award and denied petitioner’s motion to vacate. Court found that neither Texas law nor federal law allowed the court to vacate an arbitration award through a declaratory judgment. Further, petitioners were untimely in serving their motion to vacate by failing to serve within the three months required by the FAA.
-
Shanghai Liyu Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. v. Brite Lite Tribe, LLC, No. 9:24-CV-80690-RLR (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2025)07/25/2025
Court entered final judgment in favor of petitioner confirming and enforcing an arbitration award and granting pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs.
-
Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alkermes PLC, No. 2023-2374 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2025)07/25/2025
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit transferred petition to modify an arbitration award to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, finding it lacked jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1295(a)(1). Section 1298(a)(1) only provides the Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over disputes related to patent law, and the dispute seeking to modify an arbitration award based on a tribunal’s “manifest disregard” of federal patent law arose under the FAA.
-
Prodigy Finance CM2020-1 DAC v. Khan, No. 2:25-CV-06273-WJM-MAH (D.N.J. July 22, 2025)07/22/2025
Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm three foreign arbitration awards, finding no grounds to refuse enforcement were applicable as petitioners’ motion was unopposed.
-
Redes Andinas de Comunicaciones S.R.L. v. The Republic of Peru, No. 22-CV-03631-RC (D.D.C. July 22, 2025)07/22/2025
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.
-
Star Tech Solutions LLC v. EverDriven Technologies LLC, No. 2:25-CV-01240-SHD (D. Ariz. July 21, 2025)07/21/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding plaintiff’s were without merit where each of its challenges related to the arbitrability of the dispute and the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
Aadi Bioscience, Inc. v. EOC Pharma (Hong Kong) Ltd., No. 24-CV-09412-JGK (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2025)07/21/2025
Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award under the New York Convention, finding that there were no grounds to vacate the award.
-
Employers’ Innovative Network, LLC v. Bridgeport Benefits, Inc., No. 24-1350 (4th Cir. July 18, 2025)07/18/2025
Court of appeals vacated and remanded district court decision recognizing and enforcing arbitration award issued in Bermuda. Court found the record was insufficient to determine whether the recognition and enforcement of the award was governed by the New York Convention or by Chapter 1 of the FAA, and remanded for further factfinding to determine citizenship of all parties and the parties’ relationship as required to determine the proper avenue of enforcement.
-
GEM Global Yield LLC SCS v. Auto Services Group Limited, No. 1:25-CV-03909-PKC (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2025)07/17/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion to enter default judgment and confirm ICDR arbitration award under the New York Convention. Since the motion was unopposed, the court found no basis for any defense to enforcement of the award.
-
Amaplant Mauritius Ltd. and Amari Nickel Holdings Zimbabwe Ltd. v. Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation, No. 24-7030 (D.C. Cir. July 15, 2025)07/15/2025
Court of appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss a petition seeking recognition of a Zambian judgment confirming an ICC award. Court of appeals found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because neither the FSIA’s arbitration exception nor implied-waiver exception applied. Court of appeals held that the FSIA arbitration exception only extends to actions confirming an arbitral award itself, not to court judgments confirming such awards.
-
PT Rahajasa Media Internet v. Center for Provision and Management of Telecommunications and Informatics Financing, No. 1:24-CV-04643-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2025)07/14/2025
Court granted a motion to dismiss an action seeking to recognize an arbitral award against the Republic of Indonesia and several of its agencies. Court found respondents had neither expressly nor implicitly waived sovereign immunity, where the parties’ arbitration agreement did not contain a sovereign immunity waiver and the arbitration took place in the sovereign’s own country. Therefore, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the FSIA. Court also held that the commercial‑activity exception to the FSIA did not apply, because the underlying contracts and alleged non‑payment produced no direct effect in the United States.
-
Khudyan v. Republic of Armenia, No. 24-CV-01054-RBW (D.D.C. July 14, 2025)07/14/2025
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to recognize an ICSID award and denied Armenia’s counterpetition to confirm an earlier cost award that had been annulled by ICSID. Court found it had subject-matter jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitral award exception and personal jurisdiction, noting that Armenia had waived service-based objections to personal jurisdiction.
-
Song v. Que, No. 24-4129 (9th Cir. July 10, 2025)07/10/2025
Court of Appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of foreign arbitration award, holding that appellant failed to establish a defense under Article V of the New York Convention. Court of Appeals found that appellant had entered into a valid arbitration agreement, had received sufficient notice of the arbitration proceedings, and that enforcement of the award would not violate public policy.
-
Samsung Electronics Latinoamerica (Zona Libre) S.A. v. MV Communications Group, Inc., (Panama), No. 24-CV-24215-BB (S.D. Fla. July 9, 2025)07/09/2025
Court denied motion to dismiss petition to enforce arbitration award for lack of personal jurisdiction. Court found it had general personal jurisdiction over Panamanian and Costa Rican companies, determining that their principal place of business was in Miami where the sole owner, president, and legal representative of both companies “made most, if not all, of the corporate decisions” for both companies.
-
JiangSu CorEnergy Semiconductor Company Limited v. OEM Group, LLC, No. 24-CV-01675-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz. July 3, 2025)07/03/2025
Court dismissed petition to compel arbitration under § 4 of the FAA, holding that no binding arbitration agreement existed between the companies. Court held that an authenticated translation of the Chinese contract controlled as opposed to an earlier unauthenticated English version that was full of inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and grammatical errors. Court also held that agreement in the authenticated translation to “arbitrate[] or litigate[]” disputes in Shanghai did not create a binding arbitration agreement.
-
CMA CGM, S.A. v. GCC Supply & Trading L.L.C., No. 25-CV-01320 (S.D. Tex. July 3, 2025)07/03/2025
Court granted petition to compel arbitration under § 4 of the FAA, holding that binding arbitration agreement existed between French shipowner and US marine fuel supplier. Court held that because under the FAA an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract and under maritime law parties may orally or informally agree to the main terms of a contract before reducing those terms to a complete formal writing, a binding arbitration agreement was reached through email exchanges prior to the delivery of fuel.
-
Menzies Middle East and Africa SA v. Republic of Niger, No. 24-CV-00466-ABJ (D.D.C. July 3, 2025)07/03/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion to enter default judgment and confirm ICSID arbitration award issued against Niger. Court found that it had jurisdiction over Niger pursuant to the ICSID convention and the FSIA arbitration exception, and that proper service was effected through the Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Niger. Court granted default judgement and awarded petitioner the value of arbitration award and interest.
-
Molecular Dynamic, Ltd. v. Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited, No. 24-2209 (2d Cir. July 2, 2025)07/02/2025
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)06/24/2025
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.
-
Metropolitan Municipality of Lima v. Rutas de Lima S.A.C., No. 1:20-CV-02155-ACR (D.D.C. June 20, 2025)06/20/2025
Court dismissed motion to stay judgment pending appeal, finding that municipality did not make a strong showing that it was likely to prevail on appeal, monetary judgements are not irreparable, and the public interest supports efficient process for recognizing and executing arbitral awards. Court also held that repeated assertions by municipality that they would not pay award made request for stay a dilatory tactic designed to delay payment.
-
Prime Success, L.P. v. Sinovac Biotech Ltd., No. 25-CV-04989-RA (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2025)06/20/2025
Court dismissed petition seeking to enjoin ongoing suit in Antigua in favor of arbitration proceeding in Hong Kong. Court found that the petitioner in the US action was seeking only an injunction, not requesting Court to compel arbitration or issue a ruling on arbitrability, and thus the US action was not dispositive of the Antiguan action as required to issue foreign anti-suit injunction.
-
Olive Group FZ-LLC v. Afghanistan Civil Aviation Authority, No. 1:24-CV-02170-SLS (D.D.C. June 12, 2025).06/12/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion for default judgment and confirmed arbitration award. Court found it had personal jurisdiction and that petitioner’s alternative service by email on respondent Afghanistan was proper, after conventional service methods through mail and diplomatic channels were unavailable.
-
Yukos Capital Limited v. The Russian Federation, No. 22-CV-00798-CJN (D.D.C. June 11, 2025)06/11/2025
Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss, motion to stay, and supplemental motion to stay. Court found it had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Energy Charter Treaty’s arbitration article and personal jurisdiction following petitioner’s service through diplomatic channels. Court further rejected respondent’s motion to stay, determining that pending cases cited by respondent were not relevant.
-
Eurofinsa, S.A. v. The Gabonese Republic, No. 23-CV-03013-RC (D.D.C. June 11, 2025)06/11/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion to attach assets following recognition of arbitral award. Court determined that respondent had received proper notice of a default judgment and that a reasonable period of time had elapsed since the judgment, during which respondent had made no effort to pay.
-
Archirodon Construction (Overseas) Company Limited v. General Company for Ports of Iraq, No. 22-CV-01571 (D.D.C. June 10, 2025)06/10/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion for contempt and ordered respondents to pay $15,000 per day in sanctions. Court found that respondents had not complied with post-judgment asset discovery orders and that sanctions were appropriate, as all other measures to ensure compliance were exhausted.