A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.
-
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.
-
Flintlock Construction Services, LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company & Catlin Specialty Insurance Company, No. 24-791 (2d Cir. Feb. 21, 2025)02/21/2025
Court of Appeals affirmed district court’s denial of petitioner’s request to vacate arbitration award. Court of Appeals found the arbitration panel did not exceed its authority in its interpretation of the underlying agreement and that the panel’s decision was not irrational because it reflected the “plain meaning” of the underlying agreement.
-
Global Voice Group SA v. Republic of Guinea, No. 22-CV-2100-JMC (D.D.C. Feb. 18, 2025)02/18/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion to set aside default judgment, finding there existed “good cause” because of the timing of the appearance of defendant’s counsel and noting the D.C. Circuit’s strong presumption against default judgments against a foreign sovereign. Court also found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, finding no jurisdiction existed under the FSIA arbitration exception in the absence of evidence that defendant was party to the relevant arbitration agreement or that it delegated arbitrability to the arbitration tribunal.
-
Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC v. Romark Global Pharma, LLC, No. 24-MC-00445-ADC (D.P.R. Feb. 13, 2025)02/13/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA. Court found that respondent waived the right to vacate award by failing to comply with court’s order to properly oppose petitioner’s motion. Court also found that, even if respondent’s arguments for vacatur had not been waived, vacatur would not have been granted since respondent failed to show that the arbitral tribunal committed an error in rendering a final and complete award.
-
Sigma Constructores, S.A. v. Republic of Guatemala, No. 22-CV-01674-TSC-MAU (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 2025)02/13/2025
Magistrate judge recommended denial of respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s action to confirm three foreign arbitration awards, rejecting respondent’s argument that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Magistrate judge further rejected respondent’s argument that the action should be dismissed based on forum non conveniens, finding that no adequate alternative forum outside of the US existed. Lastly, magistrate judge rejected respondent’s request for dismissal under the principles of international comity, because respondent failed to cite any binding precedent supporting this assertion.
-
Walgreen Co. v. PWNHealth, LLC d/b/a Everly Health Solutions, No. 24-CV-00357-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2025)02/10/2025
Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate arbitral award under the FAA because the arbitrator neither exceeded his authority nor exhibited manifest disregard for the law. Court also denied petitioner’s alternative request to modify the award, finding that the award did not contain any evident material miscalculation, nor was it completely irrational. Court granted respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the award.
-
Etrak İnşaat Taahhüt Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. State of Libya, 22-CV-864-JMC (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 2025)02/04/2025
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award against defendant. Court found it had jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s arbitration exception, as well as personal jurisdiction, and determined that confirming the arbitration award would not violate public policy. Court concluded that it had no authority to stay the case under the New York Convention, where confirmation proceedings were pending in Turkey and Curaçao but no set aside proceedings were ongoing at the seat.
-
McEachern v. E.R.J. Insurance Group, Inc., 23-13298 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2025)01/31/2025
Court affirmed the district court’s vacatur of an arbitral award, reasoning that the process for appointing arbitrators did not comply with the terms of the underlying arbitration agreement.
-
Huarong Tianze (Hong Kong) Investment Partnership v. Huang, 1:24-CV-06502-ALC (Jan. 30, 2025)01/30/2025
Court entered judgment confirming a foreign arbitration award issued by CIETAC and granting monetary damages, interest, and fees.
-
Safran Electronics & Defense SAS v. Exail SAS, 1:24-CV-02325-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2025)01/29/2025
Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss a petition to vacate an arbitration award as untimely under the FAA. Court reasoned that petitioners did not properly serve respondents—despite attempting to do so by email—within the three-month period required under the FAA, and equitable tolling was not available to avoid the limitations period.
-
ARDU Tech Ltd. v. DS Games, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00901-MN (D. Del. Jan. 28, 2025)01/28/2025
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, finding the award met all the requirements of the New York Convention and FAA. Court further granted motion for entry of default judgment where respondent failed to appear, and plaintiff would be substantially prejudiced and unlikely to recover without a default judgment in place.
-
Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. v. T. Park Central LLC, No. 1:24-CV-08009-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2025)01/28/2025
Court dismissed petition to confirm arbitration award, finding an interim award which did not fully dispose of all the issues in the arbitration, was not a final award that the court could enforce under the FAA.
-
McEnery v. McEnery, No. 4:21-CV-09614-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2025)01/28/2025
Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm arbitration award and request for attorneys’ fees, and denied plaintiff’s request to vacate the award. Court found plaintiff’s argument that the arbitrator erred in its decision because it did not consider plaintiff’s additional valuation evidence was untimely, and the record reflected the arbitrator did in fact review the additional evidence.
-
Glass-Inspiration GMBH Design + Engineering v. M.G. McGrath, Inc. Glass & Glazing, No. 24-CV-03315-LPM-DLM (D. Minn. Jan. 27, 2025)01/27/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award and denied respondent’s request to deny confirmation of the award on public policy grounds. Court reasoned that respondent’s public policy argument was forfeited, where it was not first raised in the underlying arbitration, and failed on the merits where petitioner initiated a dispute within the appropriate timeframe following respondent’s notice of dissolution. Court further awarded petitioner’s reasonable attorneys’ fees because respondent did not seek to set aside the award and failed to show a substantial justification for refusal to comply with the award.
-
Li v. Lu, No. 3:24-CV-05604-DGE (W.D. Wash. Jan. 27, 2025)01/27/2025
Court granted motion for default judgment and petition to confirm a foreign arbitration award, where defendant failed to appear. Applying the Eitel factors, court found that default judgment was appropriate, entered default judgment, and confirmed the arbitration award.
-
Hogan Lovells US LLP v. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, No. 1:24-CV-05541-AS (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2025)01/24/2025
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award where respondents failed to respond to the petition or otherwise seek relief from the award. Treating the petition as a motion for summary judgment, court found there was no issue of material fact, the arbitrator provided more than a “barely colorable justification” for the decision, and there were no grounds to vacate the award under § 10 of the FAA. Additionally, court granted petitioner’s requested fees and costs, along with pre-judgment interest as set by the arbitrator. In awarding post-judgment interest, court found it was bound by 28 USC § 1961(a), and not by the arbitrator’s decision.
-
Zhuhai Dingfu Phase I Industrial Energy Conservation Investment Fund, LP v. Zhang, No. 8:23-CV-02059-MRA-JDE (C.D. Ca. Jan. 21, 2025).01/21/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award, finding that the petitioner had submitted an authentic arbitration award to the court; that notice was sufficient because a subsidiary—for whom the respondent was the controller and legal representative—participated in the arbitration proceedings and respondent appeared to be aware of this participation. Court further dismissed respondent’s defenses that he could not adequately participate in the proceedings due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, finding that respondent did not adequately prove that remote appearances or appearance through counsel were unavailable. Court also found respondent’s duress defense unpersuasive, noting the respondent did not make any effort to repudiate the contract until now.
-
Charleston Immersive/Interactive Media Studio, LLC v. Aydin, No. 1:24-CV-04943-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2025)01/16/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion for a protective order, denied plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel production of certain evidence, and denied plaintiff’s motion to disqualify defendant’s counsel in an action seeking vacatur of an arbitral award. Court found that it did not have a basis to second-guess the arbitrator’s evidentiary ruling on an issue of attorney-client privilege.
-
Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:20-CV-00817-JDB (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2025)01/13/2025
Court denied Spain’s motion to stay, finding that it failed to show that the Supreme Court is likely to grant certiorari in its case NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 23-7032, or that it would be likely to succeed there on the merits. Court also found that Spain did not show it would be irreparably harmed by the case continuing, that the plaintiffs would likely be harmed by granting the stay, and that the public interest weighs in favor of denying the motion because stays in arbitration enforcement cases are only appropriate if they further the objectives of arbitration, such as speedy resolution.
-
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. v. Refinería de Cartagena S.A.S., No. 1:23-CV-04825-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2025)01/10/2025
Court denied petition to vacate or modify arbitration award and granted the respondent’s cross-petition to confirm the award under the Panama Convention, holding that the tribunal had not committed procedural misconduct, exceeded its powers, or manifestly disregarded the law. Court determined that the admission of statements from two witnesses who did not appear for cross-examination did not render the proceedings fundamentally unfair and affirmed the tribunal’s decision to hold a virtual hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Moonshadow Mobile, Inc. v. Labels & Lists, Inc., 6:23-CV-01716-MTK (D. Or. Dec. 9, 2024)12/09/2024
Court vacated an arbitration award under the FAA on the grounds that it was “fundamentally unfair” to the respondent. Court reasoned that the arbitral panel applied an improperly high pleading standard in dismissing the respondent’s fraud claim while at the same time applying an unduly permissive standard in deciding in favor of the petitioner’s trade secrets claims. It further reasoned that the panel unfairly prejudiced the respondent through its management of the proceedings, including by granting disproportionate time to the petitioner and giving the petitioner disproportionately favorable treatment regarding the admissibility of witness testimony.
-
ConocoPhillips Petrozuata BV v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 24-1071 (3d Cir. Dec. 5, 2024)12/05/2024
Court of appeals affirmed and remanded district court’s decision denying intervening party, Venezuela's state-owned oil company, PDVSA's, motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds under the FSIA and granted appellant’s motion for a writ of attachment. Court of appeals rejected PDVSA's judicial and collateral estoppel argument, finding appellant’s arguments in the ICSID arbitration and the current litigation were not identical, but not irreconcilable where both arguments accepted that PDVSA and Venezuela were separate legal entities, and appellant did not change its position in bad faith.
-
NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 23-7031 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 2, 2024)12/02/2024
Court of appeals denied Kingdom of Spain’s petition for rehearing en banc, which was supported by an amicus curiae brief of the European Commission, relating to a case brought by renewable energy investors to enforce approximately $377 million in arbitration awards against the Kingdom of Spain.
-
MSV Synergy, LLC v. Shapiro, No. 1:21-CV-07578-ER (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2024)12/02/2024
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to lift a stay and confirm the arbitration award, and denied defendants’ cross-motion to vacate the award on the basis that the arbitrator exceeded her powers and denied defendants a fair opportunity to be heard, and that she manifestly disregarded the law. Court found that the arbitration clause did not limit the scope of the arbitration to preclude arbitration of certain claims and thus, the arbitrator did not exceed her authority, and that each claim the arbitrator considered was properly before the court. Further, defendants did not meet their burden in establish a manifest disregard of the law.
-
Jack Rubenstein CT, LLC v. Naturalena Brands, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-06864-AT (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2024)11/26/2024
Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award under the FAA where respondent failed to appear in the action. Court found that petitioner was entitled to confirmation where there was no genuine dispute of material fact, the arbitrator had more than a "barely colorable justification for the outcome reached," and there was no justification for vacating or modifying the award.
-
Beijing Dayou Dingxin Investment Management Partnership, L.P. v. Wang, No. 1:24-CV-00137-CEF (N.D. Ohio Nov. 25, 2024)11/25/2024
Court granted petition to recognize and enforce foreign arbitration award, finding that respondent failed to establish an applicable exception to confirmation under the New York Convention. Respondent argued the petition to enforce the award was premature because of a pending appeal, and contrary to United States public policy because it would cause undue hardship to respondent and company shareholders. Court found there was insufficient evidence of a pending appeal and respondent’s public policy arguments fell outside the narrow exception under the New York Convention.
-
Li v. Lu, No. 3:24-CV-05604-DGE (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 202411/13/2024
Court issued order to plaintiff to show cause as to why the action should not be dismissed for failure to provide proof of service. Court lacked confidence that defendant had been properly served and that it had proper jurisdiction and thus requested further supplemental briefing before ruling on plaintiff’s petition to enter default judgment to enforce Singapore arbitral award.
-
United Mexican States v. Lion Mexico Consolidated, L.P., No. 1:21-CV-03185-ACR (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 202411/08/2024
Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate the ICSID arbitration award and granted defendant’s cross-petition for enforcement of the award. Contrary to Mexico’s argument, court found that the tribunal did interpret Article 1105(1) of NAFTA, employing common interpretive tools, citing authorities, and explaining its reasoning. Court also denied a motion to intervene filed by a Mexican businessman as untimely and futile, because he did not meet the requirements for intervention under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
-
Southfield Capital, LP v. Stonington Capital Advisors, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-06269-AT (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 202411/08/2024
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to seal or redact certain judicial documents attached as exhibits in connection with its petition to confirm the arbitration award. Court disagreed with plaintiff’s arguments that (1) the parties have an interest in maintaining the arbitration proceedings confidential in their entirety, and (2) the proposed redactions would protect sensitive proprietary information – finding that plaintiff’s proposed redactions went far beyond the “narrow-tailoring requirement” exception to public access to judicial records.
-
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.
-
Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. VH 4122 Quincy, Inc., No. 8:24-CV-01265-AAQ (D. Md. Oct. 28, 2024)
10/28/2024Court 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.
-
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.
-
Next Level Ventures, LLC v. Avid Holdings, Ltd., No. 23-35404 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2024)
10/10/2024Court 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.
-
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.