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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 23–1201 (U.S. June 5, 2025)06/05/2025
Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision by the Ninth Circuit, which held that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction to confirm an arbitral award in a dispute involving a foreign state. Court clarified that, under the FSIA, personal jurisdiction does not require a minimum contacts analysis. Instead, the Court held that personal jurisdiction exists, if one of the exceptions to immunity enumerated in the FSIA applies and the plaintiff effectuated proper service.
-
Shanghai Liyu Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. v. Brite Lite Tribe, LLC, No. 24-CV-80690-RLR (S.D. Fla. June 4, 2025)06/04/2025
Court issued an indicative ruling that it would amend and clarify its prior order confirming an arbitral award, if the Eleventh Circuit returned jurisdiction to the court. Court found that its original order lacked a specific statement of the monetary amounts awarded, which could impede enforcement. However, the court’s authority to grant relief was limited by the pending appeal at the Eleventh Circuit.
-
Eletson Holdings Inc. and Eletson Corporation v. Levona Holdings Ltd., No. 1:23-CV-07331- LJL (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2025)06/02/2025
Court granted petition for antisuit injunction staying foreign proceedings to enforce an arbitral award until the US court resolves the pending action. Court found that the foreign actions sought to circumvent a related bankruptcy confirmation order and ongoing US proceedings regarding the arbitral award’s validity. Court held that the parties in the foreign and US actions are substantially the same, and that the US case will be dispositive of the foreign proceedings.
-
Reel Games Inc. v. Euro Game Technology, Ltd., No. 0:24-CV-60713-DSL (S.D. Fla. June 02, 2025)06/02/2025
Court granted motion to compel arbitration to be commenced under the Court of Arbitration at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce. Court held that the parties’ agreements contained valid and enforceable arbitration clauses, and that the defendant’s claims fell within the scope of the broad clauses. Court further rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration clauses do not survive the termination of the parties’ agreements.
-
AAK USA, Inc. v. Integrity Ingredients Corporation, No. 1:25-CV-01727-JGK (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2025)05/29/2025
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award pursuant to 9 USC § 9, holding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact. Court found that its role in reviewing an award is limited—the award is to be confirmed even if there is a “barely colorable justification” for the decision.
-
Penneco Oil Company, Inc. v. K. Petroleum, Inc., No. 25-CV-00121-WSH (W.D. Pa. May 21, 2025)05/21/2025
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to require defendant to post a security bond during proceedings to confirm or vacate the underlying arbitration award. Court found Local Rule 67.1(B) gave it discretion to order such a bond to protect against potential asset dissipation and found no justification to disregard the local rule or evidence of prejudice to defendant.
-
Happy CP Company Ltd. v. LB Accessories LLC, No. 2:24-CV-02274-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2025)05/19/2025
Magistrate judge recommended granting petitioner’s motion for default judgment to confirm a foreign arbitration award after respondents failed to appear or respond. Magistrate judge found the award enforceable under the New York Convention and FAA, recommended that petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs be denied without prejudice, and recommended entering judgment in the amount of the award.
-
Subway International B.V. v. Subway Russia Franchising Company, LLC, No. 24-1702 (2d Cir. May 12, 2025)05/12/2025
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.
-
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. 3131 Veterans Blvd LLC, No. 23-1268 (2d Cir. May 8, 2025)05/08/2025
Court of appeals held that Article II § 3 of the New York Convention, which provides that when a party seeks to enforce an arbitration agreement the courts of contracting states shall refer parties to arbitration unless the agreement is null and void, is a self-executing provision thereby abrogating its prior decision in Stephens v. American International Insurance, 66 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Stephens I”). Court of appeals reversed the district court decisions which relied on Stephens I to reject petitioners’ efforts to compel arbitration. Court of appeals rejected the respondents’ argument that Louisiana state insurance law voided the arbitration clauses, because state insurance laws could reverse preempt any federal legislation that does not specifically address insurance, as well as any treaty provisions that are not self-executing.
-
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The Lopez-Goyne Family, No. 3:24-CV-03104-MMC (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2025)05/05/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of respondents’ joint and several liability for costs awarded by the arbitral tribunal. Respondents argued costs were owed severally and petitioner should seek clarification of the award using Article 50 of the ICSID Convention. Court held that the tribunal’s language directing the award of costs was consistent with an intent to impose joint and several liability and found no ambiguity requiring clarification from the arbitral tribunal.
-
ICM Investment Partners II, LLC v. 360 Commercial Real Estate, LLC, No. 1:25-CV-00937-JAV (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2025)05/01/2025
Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, finding petitioner met its burden of showing there was no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude summary judgment on the petition, because the arbitrator’s decision provided more than “a barely colorable justification” for the outcome reached. Court also found no justification under §10(a) of the FAA for vacating the award. Court dissolved the automatic stay on execution of the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a) because petitioner established a credible fear that respondents may dissipate assets to avoid enforcement of the judgment.
-
Xu v. Zhuang, No. 24-CV-08671-RGK-BFM (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2025)05/01/2025
Court granted Xu’s petition for confirmation of an arbitral award granted by the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration under the NY Convention, finding no basis to conclude that the arbitrator made a mistake of law or fact, or that such a mistake could rise to the level of offending public policy.
-
US Trinity Energy Services, L.L.C. v. Southeast Directional Drilling, L.L.C., No. 24-10833 (5th Cir. April 28, 2025)04/28/2025
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the petition to vacate an arbitration award under 9 USC §10(a)(4) and grant of respondent’s motion to confirm the award. Court found petitioner failed to show the arbitration panel exceeded its powers and held that “manifest disregard of the law” is not a basis for vacatur under §10(a)(4).
-
Zhuhai Dingfu Phase I Industrial Energy Conservation Investment Fund, LP v. Zhang, No. 8:23-CV-02059-MRA-JDE (C.D. Cal. April 25, 2025)04/25/2025
Court granted in part and denied in part respondent’s motion to amend findings and judgment and denied respondent’s motion for stay of execution of judgment as moot. Court amended the judgment to order post-judgment interest at the rate in 28 USC § 1961(a) but declined to allow discovery on the amount petitioner collected from respondent’s assets in China and declined to amend based on what respondent described as newly discovered evidence of duress.
-
Soar Earth Ltd v. Mahaffie, No. 1:24-CV-02757-DDD-NRN (D. Colo. April 24, 2025)04/24/2025
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s contract claims based on a provision in an agreement for the sale of services subjecting “[a]ll disputes between or among the parties under or relating to this Agreement” to binding arbitration. Court found that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitration provision was enforceable with respect to all defendants.