2016-2024 Arbitration Decisions

A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.

• Concierge Auctions, LLC v. A-M 2018 Homes, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-01681-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2024)

  10/30/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the arbitrator did not disregard controlling law when he concluded that the principal owner and sole manager of the respondent LLC had apparent authority to bind the LLC to the terms of the underlying agreement.

• Hohl v. Black Diamond Franchising, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-00911 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 28, 2024)

  10/28/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the question of arbitrability should be decided by the court on the grounds that the arbitration provision provided clear and unmistakable evidence of parties’ intention to arbitrate the gateway question of arbitrability. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provision was void as a matter of public policy.

• Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. VH 4122 Quincy, Inc., No. 8:24-CV-01265-AAQ (D. Md. Oct. 28, 2024)

  10/28/2024

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment confirming arbitration award. Court found that plaintiff sufficiently established the existence of a valid contract and respondents failed to establish any grounds on which the court may vacate the award.

• The Republic of Nicaragua v. Hills Exploration Corporation, No. 3:24-CV-03104-MMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2024)

  10/28/2024

  Court denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Petitioner’s brought a petition to recognize and enforce an ICSID arbitration award. Respondents argue that simply holding property in a state does not give rise to the “minimum contacts” required to establish personal jurisdiction. Court disagreed, finding that Shaffer v. Heitner, 422 U.S. 186 (1977), created an exception to the general “minimum contacts” rule, and plaintiff could establish personal jurisdiction based on defendant’s ownership of property in the forum state for the purposes of its ICSID enforcement action.

• Cajun Industries, LLC v. Calgon Carbon Corporation, No. 1:24-CV-00107-LG-RPM (S.D. Miss. Oct. 16, 2024)

  10/16/2024

  Court first granted defendant O’Neal Constructors, LLC’s (“O’Neal”) motion to compel arbitration against defendant Cajun Industries, LLC’s (“Cajun”) as unopposed, finding that Cajun affirmed the validity and scope of the arbitration, by itself filing a demand for arbitration against Calgon Carbon Corporation (“Calgon”). Second, court denied Cajun’s motion to compel arbitration against Calgon as Calgon was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, and direct benefits estoppel did not apply where Calgon had no filed any claims attempting to enforce the agreement. Third, court granted O’Neal’s motion to stay litigation pending the outcome of arbitration. Court exercised its discretion to determine that both the case between Cajun and O’Neal, and between Cajun and Calgon should be stayed because the issues were so interconnected and stem from the same essential nucleus of operative facts.

• Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A. v. Corporacion AIC, SA, No. 23-12519 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2024)

  10/16/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision in finding the tribunal did not lack any contractual basis, nor did it exceed its authority when rendering a reasoned decision in the underlying arbitration. The Eleventh Circuit found that “[e]ven if the Tribunal erred in its analysis of the contractual language, it makes no difference to our review as long as the Tribunal construed and applied the underlying contract.” Court of appeals found the tribunal did so here. Additionally, court of appeals reasoned that it would not disturb the findings of fact made by the tribunal, as doing so would exceed its authority in confirming arbitration awards under the FAA.

• CMB Infrastructure Group IX, LP v. Cobra Energy Investment Finance, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00214-CDS-DJA (D. Nev. Oct. 15, 2024)

  10/15/2024

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the parties’ arbitration award, and granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm the award, finding the tribunal did not exceed its scope of authority by including non-signatories in the arbitration and the “law of the case” doctrine was applicable, and the tribunal did not manifestly disregard the applicable law in failing to grant plaintiff’s nominal damages. Court further granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the parties’ remaining claims, finding there was no waiver of defendant’s right to compel arbitration via a waiver.

• Silva v. WhaleCo, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-02890-SK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2024)

  10/10/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration. Court found that the plaintiff accepted the defendant’s terms of use, that the arbitration agreement was valid and encompassed the plaintiff’s claims, and that the issue of unconscionability had been delegated to the arbitrator.

• Next Level Ventures, LLC v. Avid Holdings, Ltd., No. 23-35404 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2024)

  10/10/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s finding that motion to vacate arbitral award was untimely since it was filed more than three months after the award was delivered. In particular, it found the movant was not entitled to equitable tolling because it received actual notice of the arbitration award more than three months before it moved to vacate it.

• Purple Innovation, LLC v. Responsive Surface Technology LLC, 2:20-CV-00708-RJS-CMR (D. Utah Oct. 8, 2024)

  10/08/2024

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate arbitration award, finding none of the defendants’ arguments concerning vacatur under the FAA to have merit. In particular, the defendants challenged the arbitrator’s award of legal fees and costs. Court found such an award permissible, in part because of the arbitrator’s express reasoning and legal findings.

• Dunn v. Global Trust Management, LLC, No. 21-10120 (11th Cir. Oct. 3, 2024)

  10/03/2024

  Court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s order finding that the delegation provisions in the parties’ arbitration agreements which delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator were unenforceable and ordered the district court to address whether defendant waived their ability to compel arbitration. Court of appeals concluded that the application of tribal law does not conflict with the FAA, and thus the delegation provisions at issue were enforceable. As such, issue of the choice-of-law provision have been delegated to the arbitrator.

• S.T.G. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-00517-RSH-AHG (S.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2024)

  10/02/2024

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered certain plaintiffs to proceed to arbitration and stay their claims pending the completion of arbitration proceedings. Court concluded that, for the six of seven plaintiffs who themselves were parties to the End User License Agreement (“EULA”), it was for the arbitrator, and not the court, to determine whether the minors disaffirmed the EULA by filing the instant lawsuit. Court concluded, however, that the seventh plaintiff whose mother, and not himself, entered into the EULA could not be compelled to arbitrate under the EULA.

• Kendall v. Regional Enterprises, LLC, No. 5:24-CV-00180-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2024)

  10/02/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the parties did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement and its terms clearly applied to the dispute at issue. Furthermore, court found the arbitration agreement contained a valid choice of law provision that properly delegates the issue of choice of law to the arbitrator.

• Cure & Associates, P.C. v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 23-40519 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2024)

  10/01/2024

  Court of appeals found remanded to the district court to compel arbitration and enter a stay pending arbitration finding non-signatories to an arbitration agreement may be compelled to arbitrate under California and Texas law equitable estoppel principles. Court of appeals concluded that both non-signatory companies “deliberately sought and received direct benefits” from the contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant, which contained the arbitration agreement, “such that their [non-signatory companies] are subject to arbitration per those underlying contracts.”

• Klosterman v. Discover Products Inc., No. 2:24-CV-01253-WB (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2024)

  10/01/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings after the denial of defendant’s first motion to compel arbitration, and the subsequent limited discovery that followed. Court denied plaintiff’s motion to exclude the declaration submitted by defendant, finding it was properly admissible pursuant Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) as a business record. Having admitted the affidavit, court concluded that “there [wa]s no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there exists a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

• Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.p.A., No. 1:23-CV-01175-CFC (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2024)

  09/27/2024

  Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and found, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, it did not have quasi in rem jurisdiction where because Webuild S.p.A, a foreign defendenat, is the sole owner of Webuild US, a Delaware corporation, but Webuild US has no relation to the arbitration award at issue.

• Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership Acting Through Vantage Mezzanine Fund II (PTY) LTD v. Taylor, No. 1:23-CV-06852-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2024)

  09/27/2024

  Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitral award against defendant finding that (1) court has quasi in rem jurisdiction over defendant with respect to funds held at defendant’s account at Bank of America in New York, (2) defendant has not demonstrated that one of the seven grounds of exclusion under Article V of the Convention applies, and (3) the award does not violate New York’s public policy because it is not “excessive”.

• Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, 1:23-CV-02701-RC (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2024)

  09/26/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s petition to enforce an arbitration award against the Kingdom of Spain, holding (1) that it had jurisdiction to do so under the FSIA, (2) Spain was not entitled to a stay pending resolution of related proceedings, (3) the award was entitled to full faith and credit, and (4) the defenses of forum non conveniens, the act of state doctrine, the foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine, and the broader principles of international comity doctrine did not apply.

• LXA Aviation Leasing 3 Ltd. v. Honeywell Aerospace Trading, Inc., No. 24-CV-04080 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2024)

  09/25/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, rejecting respondent’s argument that there was no Article III case or controversy at-issue where the award had not been fully satisfied.

• UpHealth Holdings Inc. v. Glocal Healthcare Systems Private Limited, No. 1:24-CV-03778 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2024)

  09/24/2024

  Court granted in part petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitral award arising under a share purchase agreement, finding that most respondents waived their contract and damages based arguments when they failed to raise them before the arbitral tribunal. Court also held that the award should be confirmed as to most respondents because the arbitral tribunal properly interpreted the underlying share purchase agreement. However, the court held that one respondent preserved a legal argument that was properly before the court and vacated the award as to that respondent, reasoning that the tribunal premised its finding as to that respondent on a fact that was not alleged or in evidence. 

• Panamax International Shipping Company Ltd. v. AAT Global Ltd., No. 1:24-CV-03512-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2024)

  09/24/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitral award issued after respondents failed to appear at the arbitration and declined to vacate the award because respondents did not show that any provision in Article V of the New York Convention applied, or that the award was procured through corruption, fraud, or undue means.

• Redes Andinas de Comunicaciones S.R.L. v. The Republico of Peru, No. 1:22-CV-03631-RC (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2024)

  09/24/2024

  Following adverse arbitral awards, two respondents—the Republic of Peru and a Peruvian government ministry—failed to appear before the court in response to petitioner’s petition to enforce its arbitral awards, and the court held that the arbitration exception to the FSIA applied such that entry of default judgment and enforcement of the awards was proper. Court set aside the default judgment of a third respondent—another Peruvian governmental entity—upon finding good cause to do so.

• First Green Industries v. Solar Dairy, LLC, No. 1:23-CV-22433-JEM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2024)

  09/24/2024

  Magistrate court recommended that petitioner’s motion for final default judgement be granted because defendant had “failed to answer or otherwise respond to” plaintiff’s petition to confirm, recognize, and enforce foreign arbitral award. Court found that plaintiff properly complied with the Convention’s Article IV’s jurisdictional prerequisites, had established a prima facie case for confirmation of the award (which defendant did rebut), and “[t]here is no evidence that any of the bases for vacating the Final Award under the New York Convention apply here.” Furthermore, defendant could not even make such a showing because it failed to file a motion to set aside the Final Award within the required three-month time limit set by the FAA.

• GPGC Limited v. The Government of the Republic of Ghana, No. 1:24-CV-00169-JEB (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2024)

  09/23/2024

  Court held that petitioner was entitled to attorneys’ fees in connection with an arbitral award the court previously confirmed upon finding that the underlying contract allowed for the prevailing party to receive fees, and respondent acted in bad faith. Court awarded fees pursuant to the Laffey Matrix, a commonly employed schedule of attorneys’ fees, which resulted in fees lower than petitioner requested.

• D.C. Keenan & Associates v. Wisell, No. 1:23-CV-08685-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2024)

  09/20/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitral award in connection with a dispute over attorneys’ fees between two law firms and denied respondents’ cross-motion to vacate or modify the award. Court found that respondent was a signatory to the underlying agreement because one of the partners (who was also a respondent) signed on behalf of his law firm, and respondents were bound by the arbitration clause. Court also found the arbitration to have been fundamentally fair because respondents were given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and parties conducted a full and fair arbitration hearing.

• RSM Production Corporation v. Gaz du Cameroun, S.A., No. 23-20583 (5th Cir. Sept. 19, 2024)

  09/19/2024

  Court of appeals reversed the district court’s vacatur of an amended arbitral award, reasoning that the arbitral panel had authority to correct computational errors in determining the amount of damages, as well as the authority to determine what constituted a computational error under the applicable rules.

• Pagano v. Nordictrack, Inc., No. 1:23-CV-00058-JNP-DAO (D. Utah Sept. 19, 2024)

  09/19/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that plaintiffs assented to the underlying terms of use, which contained an arbitration provision, by entering into clickwrap and sign-in wrap agreements when they opted to purchase the products and services provided by defendants. Court also found that parties agreed to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator and rejected plaintiffs’ claims that the agreement terms were illusory, unconscionable, and in conflict with federal law.

• BDD Group, LLC v. Crave Franchising LLC, No. 5:24-CV-10035-JEL-EAS  (E.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2024)

  09/18/2024

  Court granted motion compel to arbitration by one of the defendants. Court found that when a valid arbitration agreement exists and it contains a valid delegation clause, challenges to the applicability of the arbitration agreement is decided by an arbitrator and not the court.

• Schmidt v. Antunez, No. 1:24-CV-22464-RKA (S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2024)

  09/16/2024

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiffs’ claim that defendants published their confidential information on several state-court dockets without plaintiffs’ consent fell outside of the scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Pliszka v. Axos Bank, No. 3:24-CV-00445-RSH-BJC (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2024)

  09/13/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that, by submitting sufficient evidence authenticating plaintiff’s electronic signature, defendant met its burden to show that plaintiff executed and assented to an online agreement containing an arbitration provision. Court also found that the arbitration agreement contained a clause delegating the question of the scope and enforceability of the agreement to the arbitrator. 

• Purchase v. FaceApp Inc., No. 23-CV-02735 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 12, 2024)

  09/12/2024

  Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stay the case pending the outcome of the arbitration pursuant to the FAA where plaintiff entered into a written agreement to arbitrate via a “hybridwrap” agreement to which plaintiff had reasonable notice and granted her assent, the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and plaintiff refused to arbitrate her claims.

• Shenzhen Zejuijin Investment Center v. Yingkyui, No. 24-CV-00372-MMA-DEB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2024)

  09/10/2024

  Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award where none of the Art. V defenses to enforcement under the New York Convention applied. Court further denied respondent’s motions for lack or personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and failure to joint indispensable parties. Court additionally denied respondent’s request for a stay, finding that a pending litigation in China did not have any bearing on the current proceeding to warrant a stay. Additionally, court considered numerous evidentiary objections made by the parties regarding the various declarations submitted in this mater. Court considered each objection on the basis of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 which holds that “[a] party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.”

• Eletson Holdings Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd., No. 23-CV-07331-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2024)

  09/06/2024

  Court granted motion for leave to file an amended answer to a petition to confirm a final arbitration award and amended cross-petition to vacate the award where the amendment was not time-barred. Court determined that the expedited and summary nature of FAA proceedings is not inconsistent with applying equitable tolling to motions to vacate.

• Steines v. Westgate Palace, LLC, No. 22-14211 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2024)

  09/05/2024

  Court of appeals dismissed an interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the court could only exercise jurisdiction pursuant to § 16 of the FAA and the FAA did not apply to the parties’ dispute. Court of appeals affirmed the district court ruling that the question of whether the FAA had been overridden by another act of Congress could not be delegated to an arbitrator and the courts retain jurisdiction over the question. Court of appeals also affirmed the district court’s ruling that the parties’ arbitration agreement was not enforceable under the FAA due to the Military Lending Act, which shows Congress’ clear and manifest intention override the FAA.

• Paris Road Shopping Center, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, No. 2:23-CV-05770-CJB-MBN (E.D. La. Sept. 4, 2024)

  09/04/2024

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that while Louisiana law prohibits the enforcement of arbitration clauses in insurance contracts, the New York Convention and the FAA requires that courts enforce an arbitration clause when certain criteria are met, including that the parties to the arbitration agreement include a non-US citizen. Court found the criteria was met and the New York Convention applied because the conduct of the foreign and domestic defendants was so intertwined and identical that separation of the plaintiffs’ claims against foreign and domestic defendants could yield inconsistent results.

• ARCO National Construction, LLC v. MCM Management Corp., No. 1:20-CV-03783-JRR (D. Md. Sept. 4, 2024)
   

  09/04/2024

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate the disputes in this action. Court found that the defendant’s initiation of a separate litigation on other issues did not constitute waiver of the right to arbitrate. Additionally, defendant’s participation in the present litigation to defend its position did not constitute waiver.

• Young v. Solana Labs Inc., No. 3:22-CV-03912-RFL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2024)

  09/03/2024

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the defendants had not submitted adequate proof showing the plaintiff agreed to a third party’s terms of service (“ToS”) containing an arbitration agreement. Court also denied the defendants’ request for discovery concerning the plaintiff’s agreement to the third party’s ToS, reasoning that even if the plaintiff agreed to the ToS, the defendant was not a signatory to the agreement and lacked any basis to invoke the arbitration provision.

• Suarez Magual v. Anez Dager, No. 23-CV-23491-RAR (S.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2024) 

  09/03/2024

  Court confirmed a magistrate judge’s recommendation to vacate an order confirming an arbitration award by the ICC where one of the respondents was not properly served with the application for confirmation of the final arbitral award prior to the court’s entry of final judgment.

• JES Farms Partnership v. Indigo Ag Inc., No. 23-2565 (8th Cir. Aug. 29, 2024)

  08/29/2024

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration in part. Court of appeals found that the parties’ claims arising under addenda to the parties’ agreement were arbitrable, together with the claims arising under the main agreement. Court of appeals reasoned that the parties inclusion of two similar sentences containing arbitration clauses reflected “duplicative emphasis,” and did not reflect an intention to narrow the scope of arbitrable claims.

• SZY Holdings, LLC v. Garcia, No. 23-1305 (4th Cir. Aug 29, 2024)

  08/29/2024

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision that appellants had waived right to move to compel arbitration by waiting over nine months to do so after it was sued. Court of appeals reasoned that waiver did not occur because “Appellants consistently requested arbitration before formally moving to compel it” and that such “persistence” was not indicative of relinquishing the known right to pursue arbitration.

• Scentsy, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc., 1:23-cv-00552-AKB (D. Idaho Aug. 28, 2024)

  08/28/2024

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that that the agreement in which plaintiff’s claim arose under did not have an arbitration clause. Court reasoned claims arose from the parties’ prior 2020 agreement, and not a later-in-time agreement which contained an arbitration clause. 

• Gramercy Distressed Opportunity Fund II, L.P., v. Bakhmatyuk, No. 2:21-CV-00223-KHR (D. Wyo. Aug. 26, 2024)

  08/26/2024

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding no privity of contract existed between the parties with respect to an arbitration agreement despite reference to several documents that allegedly contained arbitration provisions.

• Iraq Telecom Limited v. Sirwin Saber Mustafa, No. 2:24-CV-03728-RBS (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2024)

  08/23/2024

  Court confirmed arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention, finding none of the grounds for refusal to enforce an award applicable. Court also found that by filing a related application under 28 USC § 1782, respondents had waived any objections to personal jurisdiction. 

• Titan Consortium 1, LLC v. Argentine Republic, No. 21-CV-02250-JMC (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2024)

  08/19/2024

  Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit as time-barred, finding that the twelve-year statute of limitations under D.C. Code § 15-101, governing enforcement of judgments rendered by courts in the District of Columbia, applied to the instant matter and not, as respondent argued, the three-year statute of limitations period pursuant to the federal or D.C. Arbitration Acts. Court reasoned that the “potential lack of uniformity [in limitations periods for claims pursuant to 22 USC § 1650a] does not compel departing from the well-settled practice of borrowing state limitations period.” As such, the twelve-year statute of limitations applied, and thus petitioner’s suit was not time-barred.

• Archirodon Construction (Overseas) Company Limited v. General Company for Ports of Iraq, No. 22-CV-01571-JEB (D.D.C. Aug. 16, 2024)

  08/16/2024

  Court denied respondents’ multiple motions asserting a range of jurisdictional and procedural arguments, and granted petitioner’s motion authorizing the commencement of attachment and execution efforts pursuant the FSIA. Under the FSIA, petitioner may seek to enforce a judgment by attaching certain property of the foreign state used for commercial activity in the United States, but only once “the court has . . . determined that a reasonable period of time has elapsed following the entry of judgment…” Contrary to respondents’ assertions, court concluded that “the intent [of respondents] to challenge the Court’s judgment does not toll the clock for the purposes of [FSIA]’s Section 1610(c)’s reasonable-time requirement,” and that eight months constitutes “a reasonable period of time” under which a court may authorize attachment and execution.

• NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 23-7031 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024)

  08/16/2024

  Court of appeals found that the district courts have jurisdiction over Spain pursuant to the FSIA’s arbitration exception. Court of appeals explained that when reviewing arbitration awards issued pursuant to the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”), whether the ECT applies to a dispute is not a jurisdictional question—rather, all that is required for jurisdictional purposes is “that the arbitral tribunal “‘purported to make an award pursuant to the ECT, not that it in fact did so.’” Court of appeals also held that the district court abused its discretion in enjoining Spain from pursuing an anti-suit injunction in foreign courts because it failed to (1) address the fact that the injunctions were sought against foreign sovereigns and (2) identify domestic interests strong enough to warrant the anti-suit injunctions. Judge Pan dissented, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an anti-suit injunction where it considered principles of international comity, consideration of the views of the US is improper because they were not before the court, and the majority gave “insufficient weight to the [US’] obligation to uphold the ICSID Convention and its strong interests in doing so”.

• Lanesborough 2000, LLC, v. Nextres, LLC, No. 1:23-CV-07584-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2024)

  08/15/2024

  Court denied in part petition to confirm arbitration award and vacated in part the parties award pursuant to 9 USC § 10(a)(4). Court found that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in awarding injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. However, claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

• Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 23-7016 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024)

  08/09/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s finding of jurisdiction over defendant Nigeria pursuant to the FSIA’s arbitration exception. Court of appeals found that the exception was met because the award was governed by an international treaty—i.e., the New York Convention—and arose from (1) a legal relationship, (2) that is considered as commercial, and (3) between persons.

• Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 23-7016 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024)

  08/09/2024

  Court of appeals upheld enforcement of arbitral award against Nigeria, finding the FSIA’s arbitration exception applied because the award was governed by the New York Convention. Court of appeals reasoned that FSIA’s arbitration exception requires the court to find (1) an arbitration agreement, (2) an arbitration award, and (3) a treaty governing the arbitration award. Whether the arbitration exception applies in this case turned on whether the New York Convention governed the arbitration award. Court of appeals held it did because it found (1) a legal relationship, (2) the relationship was considered commercial, and (3) it is one between persons.

• Fiorentino v. Cantiere Delle Marche, No. 23-CV-21089 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2024

  08/09/2024

  Fiorentino v. Cantiere Delle Marche, No. 23-CV-21089 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2024) Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the outcome of that arbitration where the parties entered into a contract for the construction of a yacht which contained an arbitration provision and each of the Complaint’s counts were determined to arise from the contract.