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.
-
GBM Global Holding Company Limited v. 91 Individuals Attached to Schedule A, No. 21-CV. 6284-AKH (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022)07/13/2022
Court confirmed a foreign arbitration award, finding there were no enumerated grounds for refusing or deferring recognition or enforcement of the award under the New York Convention, where respondents failed to appear before both the arbitral tribunal and motion to confirm the foreign arbitral award.
-
Fantastic Films International, LLC v. Screen Media Ventures, LLC et al., No. 22-CV-01014-FWS-AGR (C.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2022)07/12/2022
Court granted a motion to compel arbitration in a copyright infringement case. Court found that arbitration provisions in license agreements at issue did not terminate with the expiration of the underlying agreements.
-
Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation., No. 19-3159 (L) (2d Cir. July 8, 2022)07/08/2022
Court of appeals held that it was only obligated to afford comity to the parts of the award which the Nigerian court’s judgment previously set aside. The case was remanded to the district court to determine precisely which aspects of the award are enforceable under the Nigerian judgment, and then enter a partial enforcement order based on that determination.
-
Outokumpu Stainless Steel USA, LLC v. Coverteam SAS, No. 17-10944 (11th Cir. July 8, 2022)07/08/2022
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision for a non-signatory to enforce an arbitration agreement where the non-signatory was a defined party covered by the arbitration clause.
-
The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v. Baldwin, No. 20-CV-00195-CRK (D. Idaho July 1, 2022)07/01/2022
Court denied defendants’ motion to stay further proceedings in the enforcement of an arbitral award pending resolution of three foreign proceedings, concluding that a stay was not warranted under either its inherent power to stay cases or under Article VI of the New York Convention.
-
Hydro Energy 1, S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 21-CV-2463-RJL (D.D.C. June 28, 2022)06/28/2022
Court granted Spain’s motion to stay the proceedings to enforce an arbitral award until a pending ICSID annulment proceeding is concluded based on its inherent power to control the disposition of actions on its docket. Further, the court noted that at least six similarly-situated petitioners have sought to enforce arbitral awards against Spain in the district and each had been stayed. Court denied Spain’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.
-
The Cornfeld Group, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, No. 21-CV-62510-FAM (S.D. Fla. June 27, 2022)06/27/2022
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the action to state court and granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention. Court found it had jurisdiction under the New York Convention, because plaintiff’s bad faith claim was conceivably related to the parties’ insurance relationship and may fall within the arbitration clause. Court found that the provision’s delegation clause saved the question of arbitrability for the arbitrator.
-
Rachan Reddy v. Rashid Buttar, No. 20-1633, (4th Cir. June 24, 2022)06/24/2022
Court rejected arguments on appeal that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the arbitration award was not enforceable under the New York Convention, lacked personal jurisdiction because defendant was domiciled in New Zealand, and entered summary judgment improperly because there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding arbitration agreement.
-
Salzgitter Mannesmann International (USA) Inc. v. Sun Steel Company LLC, No. 22-CV-00030 (S.D. Tex. June 24, 2022)06/24/2022
Court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss motion to confirm arbitral award, finding it had subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention. Court concluded that the award arose out of a legal relationship with a reasonable relationship to a foreign state as required by 9 USC § 202, because the parties’ contract required petitioner to purchase steel from a Canadian company.
-
Reddy v. Buttar, No. 20-1633 (4th Cir. June 24, 2022)06/24/2022
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to enforce arbitration award under the New York Convention. Court of appeals found the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 9 USC § 203, holding along with the Second and Ninth Circuits that a plaintiff’s failure to establish the specific requirements of an enforceable arbitration agreement or award under the New York Convention is a merits question that does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction. It further found that the court had personal jurisdiction over respondent who conceded that he was domiciled in North Carolina when the action was commenced, and affirmed the court’s entry of summary judgment, finding respondent did not present evidence to support his contention that the underlying agreement was a forgery.
-
Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 20-7116 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2022)06/24/2022
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s post-judgment order denying Romania’s motion for relief from satisfaction of the district court’s judgment, which ordered Romania to pay amounts outstanding under an ICSID award, by paying a less valuable Romanian judgment relating to the same award. Court of appeals also affirmed the grant of petitioners’ motion for civil contempt and sanctions for Romania’s defiance of a post-judgment discovery order.
-
Kuehne + Nagel Inc. v. Baker Hughes, No. 21-CV-8470-KPF (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2022)06/23/2022
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay instant action under the FAA. Court found the arbitration agreement was enforceable, that the dispute fell within its scope, and that the issue of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator by incorporation of the ICC and CPR rules. Court found the arbitration provision was mandatory, although the agreement stated that either party “may” refer the dispute to arbitration 30 days after commencing mediation.
-
UAB Skyroad Leasing v. OJSC Tajik Air, The Republic of Tajikistan, No. 21-7015 (D.C. Cir. June 17, 2022)06/17/2022
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s judgment dismissing a petition to enforce an arbitral award for lack of personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Court of appeals found that appellant failed to rebut the presumption of separateness between appellee, an instrumentality, and the Republic of Tajikistan, holding that Tajikistan’s sole ownership of appellee did not establish the level of control required to show that a principal-agent relationship existed.
-
Gebre v. Kyrgyz Republic, No. 20-CV-01795-ABJ (D.D.C. June 14, 2022)06/14/2022
Court granted petitioner’s motion for default judgment and confirmed the arbitral award against the Kyrgyz Republic. Court found that given it had jurisdiction under the FAA, respondent was not immune under the FSIA, petitioner properly served respondent, and none of the grounds for denying recognition of an arbitral award under the New York Convention were applicable.
-
Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC v. Mahalaxmi Continental Limited, No. 22-CV-00781-WSH (W.D. Pa. June 14, 2022)06/14/2022
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining defendants from pursuing and the AAA from further processing defendants’ demand for arbitration. Court found that plaintiff had established more than a reasonable probability of success on the merits that it never agreed to submit to arbitration, that a TRO was necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm, that the balance of harms clearly and strongly weighed in favor of plaintiff, and that granting of a TRO was in the public interest.
-
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Novartis AG, No. 22-CV-04162-CM (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2022)06/14/2022
Court denied respondent’s unopposed motion to seal in its entirety—or in the alternative, file a heavily redacted version of—a final arbitration award, except to the extent that the redactions covered proprietary or confidential business information. Court held that when a party seeks confirmation of an arbitration award, the award becomes a judicial document subject to the presumption of public access, pursuant to the First Amendment and common law right to access judicial documents and proceedings.
-
ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., No. 21-401 (S. Ct. June 13, 2022)06/13/2022
Supreme Court, in a consolidated appeal, reversed the district court’s order in ZF Automotive denying the motion to quash a 28 USC §1782 application and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in AlixPartners that affirmed the district court’s order granting a discovery request. Supreme Court unanimously held that neither the tribunal under the auspices of the German Institution of Arbitration, nor the ad hoc tribunal under the UNCITRAL arbitration rules, fell within the scope of the term “tribunal” in 28 USC §1782(a). Court held that only a governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative body constituted a “foreign or international tribunal,” reasoning that although a “tribunal” need not be a formal court, attached to the modifiers “foreign or international,” the phrase is best understood to refer to an adjudicative body that exercises governmental authority.
-
Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. 21-55537 (9th Cir. June 10, 2022)06/10/2022
Court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s dismissal for lack of statutory standing in a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), in which plaintiff-appellant alleged that defendants engaged in illegal activities to thwart execution of a US district court judgment confirming a foreign arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention. Consistent with the Second and Third Circuits, but disagreeing with the Seventh Circuit’s residency-based test for domestic injuries involving intangible property, court of appeals held that the alleged injuries to a judgment obtained by plaintiff from a US district court in California were domestic injuries to property such that plaintiff had statutory standing under RICO.
-
Oriental Republic of Uruguay v. Italba Corporation, No. 21-CV-24264-MD (S.D. Fla. June 8, 2022)06/08/2022
Court granted in part and denied in part petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which petitioner sought to enforce an arbitration award. Pursuant to the ICSID Convention and its enabling statute, 22 USC § 1650a, the court ordered that the pecuniary obligations in the arbitral award be recognized and entered as judgment. Court denied petitioner’s claim for prejudgment interest, because the arbitral award rejected petitioner’s request for interest on the costs award.
-
Trividia Health Inc. v. Nipro Corporation, No. 20-CV-08450-VEC (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2022)05/31/2022
Court granted in part a motion for an entry of an order awarding attorney’s fees, costs, and interest following the award of a non-domestic arbitration award. Court found that the petitioner was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and that its requests were mostly reasonable but declined to award costs associated with its use of a legal research search engine, which it found was an overhead law firm cost.
-
State of Libya v. Strabag SE, No. 21-7128 (D.C. Cir. May 27, 2022)05/27/2022
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm arbitral award relating to contract disputes arising out of unfished construction projects due to the force majeure declared after the onset of the Libyan Civil War. Court of appeals held the FAA does not provide for modification of arbitration awards that require relitigating the merits.
-
Corporacion AIC, SA, v. Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A., No. 20-13039 (11th Cir. May 27, 2022)05/27/2022
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s determination that it could not vacate an arbitral award under the New York Convention on the exceeding ground under 9 USC § 10(a)(4) of the FAA. Court of appeals noted that although it believes that the 11th Circuit precedent is out of line with Supreme Court precedent on this point, their hands are tied until an en banc panel takes up the issue and holds that they can review international arbitration awards based on Chapter 1 of the FAA under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention when the United States has primary jurisdiction.
-
Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Republic of Yemen, No. 19-MC-0547-RA (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2022)05/18/2022
Court denied petitioners’ motion to compel post-judgment discovery in relation to collection on an ICC award against the Republic of Yemen from non-party, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“Fed”), regarding accounts held by non-party, the Central Bank of Yemen. Court rejected the Fed’s argument that the FSIA precluded the information subpoena but agreed that the current subpoena was overbroad because it was not tailored to discovering information relevant to locating the judgment debtors’ assets.
-
Cheim and Read, LLC v. Faurschou Projects APS, No. 1:21-CV-06540-RA (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2022)05/18/2022
Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award under the FAA and New York Convention where respondent did not oppose the petition.
-
Generali Espana de Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. Speedier Shipping, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-04080-RLM (E.D.N.Y. May 17, 2022)05/17/2022
Court granted petitioner’s application to enforce two foreign arbitration awards, which had been assigned to it by its insured, under the New York Convention. Court rejected respondent’s argument that the arbitration clause was invalid and that it did not agree to or participate in the arbitration.
-
General Marine II, LLC v. Kelly, No. 3:21-CV-01425-W-DEB (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2022)05/09/2022
Court confirmed the foreign arbitration award under the New York Convention. Court found that the restrictions in travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic did not meet the public policy exception, and that respondent’s incapacity defense failed, as it was improperly directed at an inability to perform the underlying contract instead of incapacity preventing fair arbitration proceedings.
-
Phoenix III Association, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 1:21-CV-00514-TFM-M (S.D. Ala. Apr. 26, 2022)04/26/2022
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the four jurisdictional requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied, as there was an agreement in writing; the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in New York, a territory of a signatory of the New York Convention; the dispute arose out of an insurance agreement, which is commercial in nature; and at least one of the parties to the insurance agreement was not an American. Court denied request to dismiss the matter but granted a stay pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA.
-
Uni-Top Asia Investment Ltd. v. Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration and Production Corp., No. 1:20-CV-01770-DLF (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2022)04/22/2022
Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitral award. Court found the venue was improper under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because petitioner failed to show that respondent did business in the district which is necessary for venue over an instrumentality or agency of a foreign state under 28 USC § 1391(f)(3). Court denied petitioner’s motion for jurisdictional discovery as moot.
-
Washington Schools Risk Management Pool v. American Re-Insurance Company, No. 21-CV-00874-LK (W.D. Wash. Apr. 21, 2022)04/21/2022
Court granted motion to compel arbitration after considering whether Washington state law barred application of the New York Convention. Washington law bars enforcement of certain arbitration clauses in insurance contracts. Federal statute, by way of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, provides that state insurance law reverse-preempts federal law. Court found that the New York Convention is not an ‘Act of Congress’ subject to reverse-preemption by the McCarran-Ferguson Act and granted the motion because the arbitration clause was enforceable and the claims arbitrable.
-
In re Application of Newbrook Shipping Corporation and Falcon Confidence Shipping Ltd., No. 20-2268 (4th Cir. Apr. 20, 2022)04/20/2022
Court of appeals found district court erred in granting the entire application for discovery under 28 USC § 1782, finding that the court should have restricted the evidence sought to what would be “for use” in the one proceeding that satisfied the foreign proceeding requirement. Court of appeals also remanded to the district court to address whether an appropriate agent was served with the subpoenas pursuant to Rule 4(h)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Maryland Rule 2-124(d).
-
Conner v. Regions Bank, No. 3:22-CV-00159 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 19, 2022)04/19/2022
Court found defendant did not waive its agreement to arbitrate, where plaintiff waited to invoke its right to arbitrate for several months until case was transferred to the state circuit court.
-
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Oceltip Aviation 1 Pty Ltd., No. 20-11080 (11th Cir. Apr. 18, 2022)04/18/2022
Court of appeals affirmed district court decision to confirm AAA arbitration award in a contract dispute involving the sale of a jet aircraft. Court of appeals agreed with the district court’s finding that the FAA review standards, rather than Georgia state law, applied, and that the district court had correctly confirmed the award.
-
Spliethoff Transport B.V. v. Phyto-Charter Inc., No. 21-1359 (2d Cir. Apr. 15, 2022)04/15/2022
Court of appeals dismissed case for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the district court’s order was not a final appealable decision within the meaning of the FAA because it had deferred a decision on petitioner’s request that the court appoint an arbitrator in the event the parties were unable to agree.
-
Caston v. McAfee, No. 3:21-CV-1890-G-BK (N.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2022)04/13/2022
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court dismissed the action, rather than stay the proceedings, as all the issues raised by plaintiff were to be submitted to arbitration.
-
Aalfs Family Partnership v. GSL Holdings, S.A. de C.V., No. 5:21-CV-04038-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa Apr. 11, 2022)04/11/2022
Court confirmed arbitration award and denied respondents’ motion to vacate, finding there was no misconduct or impartiality on the part of the arbitrators. Court determined that the New York Convention grounds for vacatur applied, because the award was issued in Iowa between US citizens and a Mexican corporation, as well as the FAA grounds for vacatur, as the arbitration award was issued in the US and the petitioners were seeking enforcement in the United States.
-
PT Rahajasa Media Internet v. Telecommunication and Informatics Financing Provider and Management Centre, No. 1:20-CV-11035-PGG-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2022)04/01/2022
Court denied petitioner’s application to confirm a foreign arbitration award against an agency of the Republic of Indonesia under the New York Convention. Court found that petitioner failed to timely file the application within the three-year statute of limitations in 9 U.S.C. § 207. It further found that petitioner had not shown that it was reasonably diligent in pursuing its rights or that extraordinary circumstances prevented it from filing the application in a timely manner to equitably toll the limitations period.
-
Ball v. Tesla Motors, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-00005-LA (E.D. Wis. Mar. 31, 2022)03/31/2022
Court granted respondent’s motion to compel arbitration under the FAA, finding that claims of “fraud in the inducement of the contract generally,” as opposed to the arbitration clause itself, must be submitted to the arbitrator. Court stayed the action pending arbitration.
-
Iraq Telecom Limited v. IBL Bank S.A.L., No. 21-CV-10940-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022)03/16/2022
Court confirmed, in part, the order granting $100 million attachment in aid of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7502(c) to the extent of $3 million and granted cross-motion to vacate such order as to the remaining $97 million. Court found that petitioner showed that it was likely to succeed on request to confirm $3 million arbitral award but failed to show that it was likely to receive arbitral award of $97 million in separate arbitration.
-
Skymark Properties Corporation, Inc. v. Katebian, No. 2:20-CV-12372-SFC-DRG (E.D. Mich. March 14, 2022)03/14/2022
Court issued a report and recommendation denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and grant in part and deny as moot in part defendants’ motions to dismiss in a RICO case. Court found that because the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in California, the proper course of action was to dismiss claims covered by the agreement without prejudice. Court found that plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently plead causation for the remaining claims.
-
Process and Industrial Developments Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 21-7003 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 11, 2022)03/11/2022
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to deny motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitral award against foreign sovereign. Court of appeals found that (i) the arbitration exception to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applied, and (ii) a foreign court’s order ostensibly setting aside an arbitral award has no bearing on the district court’s jurisdiction and is instead an affirmative defense properly suited for consideration at the merits stage.
-
Tethyan Copper Company PTY Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, No. 19-CV-02424-TNM (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2022)03/10/2022
Court denied motion for a stay of enforcement of ICSID award, finding that a stay would not benefit judicial economy, denying a stay would not irreparably harm defendant, and granting a stay would prejudice plaintiff. Court also denied motion to dismiss petition to enforce ICSID award, finding that it had jurisdiction and the arbitral award merited full faith and credit.
-
Kondot S.A. v. Duron LLC, No. 21-CV-03744-ER (S.D.N.Y. Fla. Feb. 22, 2022)02/22/2022
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the third partial final arbitration award under the New York Convention, finding respondent failed to show that any of the grounds for refusal of recognition of the award applied. Court found that there was more than a barely colorable justification to support a finding that the arbitrators conducted the proceedings in accordance with the parties agreed-upon procedure, determined that respondent had ample opportunity to be heard in the arbitration, and found respondent failed to prove the public policy defense.
-
Full Moon Logistics v. Bald Eagle Logistics, Inc., No. 8:21-CV-02695-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2022)02/16/2022
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties and plaintiffs did not demonstrate procedural and substantive unconscionability.
-
The Branch of Citibank, N.A. Established in the Republic of Argentina v. De Nevares, No. 1:21-CV-06125-VM (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2022)02/13/2022
Court found that a foreign branch of a banking entity had standing and capacity to bring an action under Rule 12(b)(1) and 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Court granted plaintiff’s request to compel arbitration and issued a preliminary injunction on defendant’s claim in an Argentine court.
-
Republic of Kazakhstan v. Chapman, No. 1:21-CV-03507-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2022)02/11/2022
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court as to claims by Kazakhstan, but denied the motion as to the remaining plaintiff, finding that the subject matter jurisdiction clause under 9 USC § 203 and remand provision under 9 USC § 205 must be read separately. Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention as to the remaining plaintiff, finding that an agreement had been formed between the parties and the agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
Bartlit Beck LLP v. Okada, No. 21-1633 (7th Cir. Feb. 8, 2022)02/08/2022
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm arbitration award. Court of appeals declined to decide whether both Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention and § 10 of the FAA applied to defendant’s application to vacate the award, finding that there appeared to be no conflict between the provisions for purposes of the case. Court of appeals held that defendant was not denied a fundamentally fair proceeding, particularly as he refused to participate in the arbitration.
-
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd v. Air India Ltd., No. 1:21-CV-09155-PGG (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2022)02/04/2022
Court stayed proceedings until pending motions to dismiss in related cases in the District Court for the District of Columbia are resolved. Court, assuming defendant was the alter ego of the Republic of India for the purposes of confirmation of a foreign arbitration award, found the issues raised in the Republic of India’s motions to dismiss in the District of Columbia actions substantially overlap with the issues presented to the Court in connection with its subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
-
The Federal Republic of Nigeria v. VR Advisory Services Ltd., No. 20-3909 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2022)02/03/2022
Court of appeals vacated and remanded district court’s judgment in which it had vacated its previous ex parte grant of Nigeria’s application to compel discovery for use in a foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 USC § 1782. Court of appeals found the district court erred in concluding that the US-Nigeria MLAT restricted Nigeria’s use of other lawful means to access evidence in the US for use in criminal matters.
-
Pao Tatneft v. Ukraine, No. 1:17-CV-00582-CKK (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2022)02/02/2022
Court denied respondent’s request for an abeyance or extension of time to produce discovery in relation to petitioner’s interrogatories and document requests in aid of execution of arbitration award and deferred ruling on the motion for protective order until briefing was complete. Court ruled that due to security concerns petitioner was to treat all produced information as for outside counsel’s eyes only.
-
AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG v. Pharmaessentia Corporation, No. 1:20-CV-12066-MLW (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2022)01/28/2022
Court denied plaintiff’s request for sanctions in a case involving a discovery dispute over jurisdiction in relation to enforcement of an arbitration award. Court found that defendant’s stipulation to jurisdiction and payment of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees relating to the motion for sanctions was sufficient remedy for defendant’s earlier violation.