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.
-
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.
-
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership, v. Qin, No. 23-0747 (2d Cir. Apr. 10, 2024)04/10/2024
Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment granting motion for summary judgment to confirm a CIETAC arbitration award under the New York Convention and denying a motion for reconsideration where petitioner was provided adequate notice of arbitration.
-
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, No. 23-0747 (2d Cir. Mar. 20, 2024)03/20/2024
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of CIETAC arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention, rejecting defendant’s argument that he was not provided adequate notice of the arbitration and was therefore unable to participate in the selection of arbitrators. Court of appeals concluded that plaintiff made sufficient efforts that were reasonably calculated to provide notice to defendant.
-
Telecom Business Solution, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., No. 23-144 (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2024)02/06/2024
Court of Appeals affirmed district court’s ruling confirming the arbitration award because the claims were rightfully governable by the binding arbitration provision in the shareholders’ agreement. Court of Appeals found defendants failed to establish either that the arbitration panel displayed a manifest disregard for the law or that the arbitration procedure was fundamentally unfair. Court of Appeals concluded that the panel’s “last-minute switch” from New York law to the AAA rules was not fundamentally unfair because defendants were on notice that the arbitration would be conducted in accordance with the AAA rules.
-
Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd. v. Occidental Exploration and Production Co., No. 21-3039 (2d. Cir. Aug. 18, 2023)08/18/2023
Court of appeals affirmed judgment of district court in part and vacated in part. Court of appeals upheld district court’s confirmation of the arbitration award as there was no evidence in the record that an arbitrator’s nondisclosure of a professional connection to petitioner’s counsel from an unrelated prior arbitration and arbitration conferences interfered with the composition of the arbitral authority. Court of appeals vacated the district court’s award of pre-judgment interest because it was not confident that the district court accurately calculated the compound interest.
-
Rabinowitz v. Kelman, No. 22-1747 (2d Cir. July 24, 2023)07/24/2023
Court of appeals vacated district court’s dismissal of petition to confirm arbitral award and remanded for further proceedings. Court of appeals found the petition adequately pleaded subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and that the forum selection clause in the parties’ arbitration agreement did not bar the action from proceeding in federal court.
-
Olin Holdings Limited v. State of Libya, No. 22-825 (2d Cir. July 12, 2023)07/12/2023
Court of appeals affirmed order granting petition to confirm ICC arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention. Court of appeals found that Libya was not entitled to de novo review of the arbitrability of petitioner’s claim before confirmation of the award because it clearly and unmistakably agreed to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators by signing a treaty providing for the option of resolving disputes under the ICC rules.
-
Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd. v. Occidental Exploration and Production Company, No. 21-3039 (2d Cir. June 15, 2023)06/15/2023
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s confirmation of an arbitral award, holding that the alleged undisclosed partiality of one of the arbitrators was not supported by the evidence and therefore, did not violate the FAA. Court of appeals also applied the New York Convention in determining that there was no evidence the arbitrator’s alleged partiality “interfered with the ‘composition’ of the arbitral authority.” Court of appeals vacated the district court’s calculation of pre-judgment interest and remanded for the court to adequately explain its calculation.
-
Generali España de Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. Speedier Shipping, Inc., No. 22-1150 (2d Cir. May 11, 2023)05/11/2023
Court of appeals affirmed order enforcing two foreign arbitration awards in favor of petitioner-appellee pursuant to the New York Convention. Court of appeals rejected appellant’s arguments that it was not a party to the governing agreement and that the arbitration violated appellant’s due process rights.
-
Iraq Telecom Limited v. IBL Bank S.A.L., No. 22-832 (2d Cir. Apr. 17, 2023)04/17/2023
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying petition to stay enforcement of arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner’s motion despite an ongoing annulment proceeding in Lebanon.
-
Smarter Tools Inc. v. Chongqing Senci Import Export Trade Co. Ltd., No. 21-00724 (2nd. Cir. Jan. 17, 2023)01/17/2023
Court of Appeals affirmed order denying petition to vacate an arbitral award and granting cross petition to confirm such award, finding that the district court did not err in (i) remanding for the arbitrator to issue a reasoned award and (ii) not concluding that the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law.
-
Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Orinoco, C.A., No. 20-4248 (2d Cir. Oct.3, 2022)10/03/2022
Court of appeals found that a party is not required to serve a summons in order to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the N.Y. Convention. Court of appeals further found that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to petitioner, determining that respondent did not act without justification in refusing to abide by the arbitrator’s decision.
-
Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation., No. 19-3159 (L) (2d Cir. July 8, 2022)07/08/2022
Court of appeals held that it was only obligated to afford comity to the parts of the award which the Nigerian court’s judgment previously set aside. The case was remanded to the district court to determine precisely which aspects of the award are enforceable under the Nigerian judgment, and then enter a partial enforcement order based on that determination.
-
The Federal Republic of Nigeria v. VR Advisory Services Ltd., No. 20-3909 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2022)02/03/2022
Court of appeals vacated and remanded district court’s judgment in which it had vacated its previous ex parte grant of Nigeria’s application to compel discovery for use in a foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 USC § 1782. Court of appeals found the district court erred in concluding that the US-Nigeria MLAT restricted Nigeria’s use of other lawful means to access evidence in the US for use in criminal matters.
-
Gater Asset Limited v. Ao Moldovagaz, No. 19-3550 (2d. Cir. Jun. 22, 2021)06/22/2021
Court vacated district court’s judgment in petitioner’s renewal action and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction but affirmed district court’s original default judgment in dispute about Moldovan gas debts. Court found it unnecessary to vacate the earlier default judgment because the respondents had relied heavily on facts that postdated the default judgment when asking the court to vacate for lack of jurisdiction.
-
CesFin Ventures LLC v. Al Ghaith Holding Company PJSC, No. 20-1106-CV (2nd Cir. Apr. 22, 2021)04/22/2021
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitration award relating to guarantee agreements, finding that the tribunal did not manifestly disregard the law.
-
Eaton Partners, LLC v. Azimuth Capital Management IV, LTD., No. 19-4365-CV (2nd Cir. Apr. 20, 2021)04/20/2021
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitration award relating to a placement agreement, finding that the arbitrator did not engage in misconduct.
-
Trina Solar US, Inc. v. Jasmin Solar PTY LTD, No. 17-572-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 2, 2020)04/02/2020
Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and denial of a motion for limited discovery on the question of whether a party was bound by the arbitration clause at issue. District court had found that a nonsignatory was bound to the arbitration agreement through agency theory. The Second Circuit found that the nonsignatory could not be bound by the arbitration agreement because the contract explicitly excluded it as a party.
-
Buhannic v. Tradingscreen, Inc., No. 18-2274 (2d Cir. Oct. 11, 2019)10/11/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court order confirming an arbitration award, finding meritless petitioner’s claims that the arbitral panel had improper connections with the respondents. Court additionally refused to consider documentary exhibits not presented to the district court, finding that no obvious injustice or extraordinary circumstance justified the consideration of new allegations and evidence.
-
1199 SEIU united Healthcare Workers East v. Alaris Health Hamilton Park, No. 18-2898 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2019)09/17/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award rendered in a dispute related to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Court rejected defendants’ arguments that the award violated public policy and that the arbitrator did not draw its essence from the CBA.
-
Landau v. Rheinold, No. 17-3963 (2d Cir. May 1, 2019)05/01/2019
Court of appeals confirmed a district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award granted by a rabbinical tribunal. Court found that to confirm an arbitration award under § 9 of the FAA, a district court should “look through” to the underlying controversy to determine whether there is subject matter jurisdiction. Court found that district court had properly determined it had subject matter jurisdiction and confirmed the award.
-
National Indemnity Company v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., No. 18-534-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 18, 2019)04/18/2019
Court of appeals vacated district court’s order granting motion to enforce arbitral award, concluding that a settlement agreement between petitioner and intervenor did not establish liability of non-party respondent, but rejected respondent’s argument that the settlement agreement exonerated it from any further liability under the arbitral award.
-
Fidelity Brokerage Services v. Deutsch, No. 18-1774 (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2019)03/13/2019
Court of appeals dismissed appeal of district court’s order rejecting motion to vacate arbitration award on the basis it was incomplete and directing parties back to arbitration. Circuit court found that the district court had jurisdiction to order the parties back to arbitration since the “complete arbitration” rule was prudential and not jurisdictional, but that there was no appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of an order directing an arbitration to proceed.
-
Katz v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 18-1436 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2019)03/12/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court decision confirming an arbitral award, finding that the standard of review imposed by the FAA does not violate the Fifth Amendment due process right to judicial review, since a private party’s agreement to arbitrate does not constitute state action.
-
Doscher v. Sea Port Group Securities, LLC, No. 18-0054-CV (2d Cir. Feb. 12, 2019)02/12/2019
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order denying petition to vacate and modify an arbitral award. Court held that district court had correctly reasoned that it had no basis for determining that the arbitral panel had acted in a way that violated fundamental fairness.
-
General Re Life Corp. v. Lincoln National Life Ins., No. 17-2496 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2018)11/28/2018
Court of appeals affirmed the district court judgment granting the cross-petition to confirm the award issued after the arbitral panel clarified the original award. Court recognized an exception to the doctrine of functus officio, holding that arbitrators retain their authority to clarify an award where an arbitration award is ambiguous.
-
Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, No. 17-3211-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 17, 2018)10/17/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award against plaintiff-appellant, finding that the claims were time-barred and did not merit equitable tolling or else failed to state a claim. Court denied plaintiff’s argument that the district court had applied the wrong legal standard in failing to construe the facts liberally.
-
Sistem v. Kyrgyz Republic, No. 16-4153 (2d Cir. July 17, 2018)07/17/2018
Court of appeals affirmed decision of district court confirming ICSID Additional Facility arbitral award, clarifying that the action was actually one of “recognition and enforcement” rather than “confirmation”. Court found that defendant waived its right to challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal by failing to raise the issue during the arbitration. Court emphasized that, under the FSIA and on the record before them, the District of Colombia may have been the proper venue, but held that defendant failed to timely raise a venue objection and thus was precluded from doing so on appeal.
-
Cooperativa Agraria Industrial Naranjillo Ltda. v. Transmar Commodity Group Ltd., No. 16-3532 (2d Cir. May 9, 2018)05/09/2018
Court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award under §10(a)(4) of the FAA. Court held that the district court erred by relying on New York Law and not the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG); and erred as a matter of law by relying primarily on the face of the contract and the document allegedly incorporated by reference, whereby it should have also considered extrinsic evidence: “Because additional fact finding will be required in order to adduce such evidence, the district court abused its discretion in failing to allow discovery, hold an evidentiary hearing, or both.”
-
Southside Hospital v. New York State Nurses Association, No. 17-0990 (2d Cir. May 9, 2018)05/09/2018
Court of appeals affirmed the judgement of the district court to confirm an arbitral award in favor of the respondent-appellee. Court held that, because the parties’ agreement expressly incorporated the AAA Arbitration Rules, they delegated the power to decide issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. In that context, there was nothing in what the arbitrator did that would require the court to abandon the substantial deference accorded to an arbitrator’s decision.
-
Chelsea Grand, LLC v. New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, No. 17-1711-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 3, 2018)
04/03/2018Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, ruling that the arbitrator had acted within the scope of his authority.
-
Pfeffer v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 17-1819 (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2018)02/15/2018
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and denial of motion to vacate that award. Court found no error in the district court decision that plaintiff failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that vacatur was appropriate under the FAA.
-
Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 15-3109-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 23, 2017)10/23/2017
Court reversed and vacated district court orders and judgment confirming in ex parte proceedings an ICSID arbitration award against a sovereign state, and remanding the case with instructions to dismiss the petition without prejudice. Court held that the district court erred in determining that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not apply to proceedings to confirm ICSID awards and that venue in the Southern District of New York is not proper under that act.
-
Bergheim v. Sirona Dental Systems, Inc., No. 17-548-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 11, 2017)
10/11/2017Court of appeal affirmed district court judgment confirming arbitral award on damages and rejecting appellants’ allegation that award should have been vacated on the ground that arbitrator disregarded the plain terms of the agreement and manifestly disregarded Delaware’s prohibition on speculative damages.
-
Rite Aid of New York, Inc. v. 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, No. 16-3342 (2d Cir. Aug. 22, 2017)08/22/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court judgment confirming arbitration award in part. Court held district court did not err in denying petition to vacate an arbitration award, but dismissed the appeal from the grant of attorneys’ fees for lack of appellate jurisdiction as the district court did not compute the fees owed and therefore that order was not final and ripe for review.
-
Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 15-3947-CV (2d Cir. Jul. 24, 2017)07/24/2017
Circuit court vacated judgment confirming arbitral award and remanded case, holding that district court erred in finding existing case law conclusively resolved the question whether arbitrator had the authority to certify a class containing absent class members.
-
Odeon Capital Group LLC v. Ackerman, No. 16-1717-CV(XAP) (2nd Cir. July 21, 2017)
07/21/2017Court of appeal affirmed district court’s refusal to vacate an arbitral award and vacated and remanded the court’s denial of Ackerman’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Court found that the arbitral award did not warrant vacatur because Odeon had not sufficiently demonstrated that Ackerman’s alleged perjury was material to the award. However, the court found that the district court had applied the wrong legal standard in denying Ackerman’s fee request and that, under New York law, employees who prevail against their employer on a claim of unpaid wages are entitled to all reasonable attorneys’ fees.
-
Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd. v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, No. 14-597 (2d Cir. July 20, 2017)
07/20/2017Court of appeal affirmed district court’s vacatur of prior judgment confirming an arbitration award that had since been set aside, finding that a court should analyze the full range of considerations for vacatur under FRCP Rule 60(b) and give significant weight to concerns of international comity. Although the district court had failed to do so, and instead ruled on the ground that the New York Convention required vacatur, the court found that consideration of these factors would not have materially changed the outcome.
-
Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 15-707 (2d Cir. July 11, 2017)07/11/2017
Court of appeal reversed an order denying respondent’s motion, vacated the judgment and remanded the case with instruction to dismiss the ex parte petition brought by petitioner to confirm a $1.6 billion ICSID award in accordance with the ICSID Convention. Court held that the district court’s reliance on New York’s CPLR Art. 54, to import into 22 USC § 1650a a procedural mechanism by which to convert an arbitral award into a federal judgment and thereby exercise subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the foreign sovereign, was in error. Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides the sole basis for subject matter jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns and requires serving the sovereign with process in compliance with the FSIA and meeting venue requirements before seeking entry of a federal judgment, and that Section 1650a “mandates enforcement of ICSID awards in federal court through an action on the award and not through an ex parte order.”
-
Al Azzawi v. International Centre for Dispute Resolution Organization, Kellogg Brown and Roots Services, Inc., No. 16-3965 (2d Cir. June 20, 2017)06/20/2017
Court of appeal granted appellees’ motions for summary affirmance of the district court’s ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to assert claims of an alleged violation of the ICDR Arbitration Ruels in an underlying arbitration and dismissed the appeal as lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
-
Tully Construction Co., Inc. v. Canam Steel Corp., No. 16-1324 (2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2017)03/23/2017
Court of appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court’s confirmation of an arbitral award and denial of vacatur. Court held that the award was not in manifest disregard of the law or the parties’ agreement, that the award was reasoned, and that the lower court was correct in reducing the damages only by the principal amount in escrow instead of principal and accrued interest.
-
Roy v. Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra Society, Inc., No. 16-717 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2017)03/09/2017
Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s decision to deny appellant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that, contrary to the appellant’s claims, the arbitrator had not (i) committed misconduct by refusing to admit into evidence certain recordings and transcripts; (ii) exceeded his powers by hearing testimony concerning complaints and concerns over the appellant’s performance and competence; (iii) improperly considered the testimony of the appellees’ witnesses over those who supported the appellant; and (iv) issued an award that was contrary to public policy. Court of appeals further held that appellant failed to proffer sufficient evidence to establish that his union breached its duty to fairly represent the appellant during the arbitration.
-
CBF Indústria de Gusa v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., No. 15-1133 (2d Cir. Mar. 2, 2017)03/02/2017
Circuit court granted petition for rehearing and vacated district court’s judgment dismissing the action to enforce award. Court found that district court had erred in determining that New York Convention and FAA require appellants to seek confirmation of a foreign arbitral award before the award may be enforced by a United States District Court, and erred in holding that appellants’ fraud claims should be dismissed prior to discovery on the ground of issue preclusion, as issue preclusion is an equitable doctrine and appellants plausibly alleged that appellees engaged in fraud.
-
Nat’l Indemnity Co. v. IRB Brazil Reseguros S.A., No. 16-1267 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2017)01/31/2017
Circuit court affirmed confirmation of arbitral awards, finding that district court had not committed clear error in concluding that an arbitrator had not shown “evident partiality” by accepting an appointment by a related party in another arbitration.
-
Martin v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., No. 16-456 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2017)01/19/2017
Court affirms district court’s denial of plaintiff’s petition to vacate an arbitration award because plaintiff failed to give defendant timely notice of the petition to vacate as required by the FAA. Service of the petition via email was inappropriate where the defendant had not agreed in writing to accept service by email.
-
CBF Industria De Gusa SA v. Amci Holdings, Inc., No. 15-1133 (2d Cir. Jan. 18, 2017)01/18/2017
Circuit court vacated district court’s dismissal of enforcement action and remands for further proceedings. Court held that the district court erred in holding that appellants were required to confirm their foreign arbitral award before they could be allowed to enforce it. This is because the New York Convention and Chapter 2 of the FAA require only that the award-creditor of a foreign arbitral award file one action in a federal district court to enforce the foreign arbitral award.
-
PDV Sweeny, Inc. v. ConocoPhilips Co., No. 16-170 (2d Cir. Nov. 7, 2016)11/07/2016
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the appellant’s petition to vacate an arbitral award. Court of appeals held that the New York public policy against penalty provisions in contracts did not preclude the arbitration award because the arbitral tribunal construed the contract clause at issue as a termination provision rather than as a liquidated damages provision.
-
Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S. De R.L. De C.V., v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, No. 13-4022 (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)11/01/2016
Court denied appellant’s petition for rehearing in panel or en banc of its decision to affirm confirmation of an ICC arbitral award vacated by Mexican courts in Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, No. 13-4022 (2d. Cir. Aug. 2, 2016).
-
Laurence v. Sol G. Atlas Realty Co., Inc., No. 15-3087-CV (2nd Cir. Oct. 28, 2016)10/28/2016
Court vacated district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration and remands suit. Court held that the wording of the arbitration provision in the collective bargaining agreement is not “clear and unmistakable” as to whether statutory discrimination or retaliation claims must be submitted to arbitration.
-
Corporación Mexicana De Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, No. 13-4022 (2d Cir. Aug. 2, 2016)08/02/2016
Circuit court affirmed confirmation of an ICC arbitral award following vacatur of the award by Mexican courts. While acknowledging “the prudential concern of international comity” and cautioning that “any court should act with trepidation and reluctance in enforcing an arbitral award that has been declared a nullity by the courts having jurisdiction over the forum in which the award was rendered,” the second circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding, inter alia, that Mexico’s retroactive application of one of its laws, which had the effect of favoring a state enterprise over a private party, and left that party with no available remedy or potential relief for its claims, violated U.S. public policy and basic standards of justice.