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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Madison Pacific Trust Limited v. Groza, 25-CV-00642-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2025)04/10/2025
Court granted petitioner’s application to serve respondents via alternative means under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 for purposes of initiating proceedings to confirm an arbitral award. Court found that petitioner had demonstrated that respondents’ physical whereabouts were unknown and could not be ascertained with reasonable diligence, and serving respondents by email was reasonably calculated to satisfy due process requirements. Court also directed delivery of service papers to addresses listed on court filings in parallel proceedings.
-
J&J Empire Express, Inc. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 1:24-CV-01200-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2025)04/09/2025
Court denied petition to vacate an arbitration award and confirmed the award, holding that petitioner had not demonstrated that the arbitrator committed manifest disregard for the law in issuing the award.
-
Shanghai Liyu Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. v. Brite Lite Tribe, LLC, 9:24-CV-80690-RLR (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2025)04/08/2025
Court granted a petition to confirm an arbitral award under the New York Convention based on the court’s factual findings following an evidentiary hearing that petitioner properly served respondent and legal conclusion that the underlying award dealt with matters within the scope of the arbitration.
-
Webuild S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, 1:21-CV-02464-RBW (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2025)04/04/2025
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and confirmed an ICSID arbitral award, holding that it had personal jurisdiction over defendant, subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and the award was authentic.
-
The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v. Baldwin, No. 1:22-CV-00011 (D.N. Mar. Is. April 3, 2025)04/04/2025
Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court accepted respondents’ argument that the Government of Laos’ petition to enforce an arbitration award against them was premature, as respondents were not parties to the underlying arbitration and a determination of whether respondents could be held liable as alter egos was inappropriate in the context of an action to confirm an arbitration award.
-
Port of Vancouver USA v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 24-CV-06033-DGE (W.D. Wash. Mar. 26, 2025)03/26/2025
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, holding that the ambiguity grounds outlined in the FAA to vacate the award did not apply because the arbitration panel provided, upon remand, necessary clarifications to a previously judicially unenforceable award. Court also found that the panel did not exceed its authority by redetermining issues previously decided because it was responding to a court order requiring it to add specificity to its original award.
-
Norman Intertrade Ltd. v. Bon-Woong Koo, No. 24-CV-02422-HSG (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025)03/24/2025
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, holding that the award fell under the New York Convention because it arose out of a commercial relationship between non-US parties. Court reasoned that defendants failed to meet their substantial burden to show that a defense to the enforcement of the award applied because they did not oppose the petition.
-
Phillips v. Galisky, No. 24-CV-00158 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 24, 2025)03/24/2025
Court granted a petition to confirm an arbitration award, holding that none of the grounds for vacatur under the FAA applied. Court found that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers, finding that there was no error in the arbitrator including entities not subject to the agreement in the award, rather, the award was simply unenforceable with regard to those entities.
-
AKF Inc. v. Skybell Technologies Inc., No. 24-CV-02271-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2025)03/24/2025
Court granted a petition to confirm an arbitration award, holding that none of the FAA grounds for vacatur applied. Court found that the public policy exception would only apply when the enforcement of an award constituted a predatory loan, not where, as here, respondents’ claim that the underlying contract was invalid, which was for determination of the arbitrator. Court also found that the award did not exhibit a manifest disregard of law simply because respondents disagreed with the arbitrator’s interpretation and application of legal precedent.
-
Leviathan Group LLC v. Delco LLC, dba Delco Products, No. 24-1547 (6th Cir. Mar. 21, 2025)03/21/2025
Court of appeals denied defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate district court’s order confirming arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator was acting within the scope of her authority. Court of appeals reasoned that where parties have bargained for an arbitrator—and not federal judges—to decide their dispute, legal or interpretive errors by arbitrators must be tolerated if the arbitrator has arguably construed the agreement. Court further found that where the arbitration agreement does not require the arbitrator to explain her decision, courts will not vacate an award for failure to provide such an explanation.
-
World Media Alliance Label, Inc. v. Ello Entertainment Group, LLC, No. 23-CV-21985-FAM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2025)03/21/2025
Court denied petitioner’s renewed motion for contempt based on respondent’s failure to satisfy an arbitration award confirmed by the court. Court found that under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent, court orders confirming arbitral awards operate as final monetary judgments because they require the payment of a definite sum of money. Because monetary judgments fall outside the court’s contempt power, court held that the appropriate process to enforce the award was a writ of execution, not a finding of contempt.
-
Btesh v. Btesh, No. 23-CV-23679-JB (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2025)03/21/2025
Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss petition to confirm and enforce an arbitration award under the Inter-American Convention, finding it did not have personal jurisdiction over the respondent. Court reasoned that petitioner could not plead sufficient facts to demonstrate a connection to the forum to establish specific or general personal jurisdiction, or jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). Moreover, Section 9 of the FAA did not provide an independent basis for personal jurisdiction.
-
Spineway SA v. Strategos Group, LLC, No. 24-1584 (3d Cir. Mar. 18, 2025)03/18/2025
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying petition to confirm a foreign arbitration award because the arbitrator was not selected in accordance with the parties’ agreement. Court of Appeals found that, despite a reference to the non-existent Geneva ICC in their agreement, the parties intended the ICC, not the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI), to select the arbitrator and intended for the ICC rules to govern. Since the arbitrator was selected under SCAI rules, in contravention of the parties’ agreement, the district court properly refused to confirm the award under the New York Convention.
-
Teleport Mobility, Inc v. Sywula, No. 21-CV-00874-SI (N.D. Cal. March 18, 2025)03/18/2025
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay proceedings, denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, and confirmed the arbitration award in part but held it did not have jurisdiction to confirm the award in full. Court held it only had jurisdiction over the portions of the award concerning issues and parties previously before the court, and that the other portions of the award would need to be confirmed by a state court judge.
-
Zhongtie Dacheng (Zhuhai) Inv. Mgmt. Co. Ltd. v. Yan, No. 24-736 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2025)02/27/2025
Court of Appeals vacated district court judgment granting petition to enforce award against respondents under the New York Convention, explaining the “district court failed to show its work” in making the required factual findings to support confirmation of the award, including whether the agreement containing the arbitration clause was forged.