A&O Shearman | U.S. International Arbitration Digest | 2016-2024 Arbitration Decisions
U.S. International Arbitration Digest
This links to the home page

2016-2024 Arbitration Decisions

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

Filter By:
  • Risen Energy Co. v. Focus Futura Holdings Participacoes S.A., No. 23-CV-10993-LGS (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2024)

    Court granted respondent’s motion to confirm arbitral award, but denied respondent’s request for attorneys’ fees relating to post-arbitration litigation where the parties’ arbitration agreements did not provide for such relief.

  • Gem Yield Bahamas Ltd. v. Mullen Technologies, Inc., No. 24-CV-01120-KPF (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2024)

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment and confirmed the interim measures award issued during the liability phase of a bifurcated arbitration.  Court denied respondents’ motion to vacate the award, concluding that the arbitrator did not exceed their authority and that the award was not rendered in manifest disregard of the law.

  • UiPath, Inc. v. Shanghai Yunkuo Information Technology Co., No. 23-CV-07835-LGS (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2024)

    Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award and granted pre- and post-judgment interest, finding that the parties’ entered into a written arbitration agreement, both the United States and China are signatories to the New York Convention, the subject matter of the agreement is commercial in nature as it related to respondents’ misappropriation of trade secrets, and the agreement is not “entirely domestic in scope” because respondent is a foreign corporation.

  • Samsung Electronics Co. v. Triller Platform Co., No. 24-CV-00261-MCS-MAA (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2024)

    Court granted petition to confirm the parties’ foreign arbitration award and awarded pre- and post- award interest. 

  • Leviathan Group LLC v. Delco LLC, No. 23-CV-12611-DML-CI (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2024)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce the arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate.  Court did not find evidence that the arbitrator exceeded her authority or acted with a “manifest disregard of the law” in that the arbitrator considered each of defendant’s arguments and provided a reasonable basis for her decision. 

  • Subway International, B.V. v. Subway Russia Franchising Co., LLC, No. 21-CV-07362-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2024)

    Court granted petition to confirm the parties’ initial arbitration award and second award issued on remand.  Court denied the cross-petition to vacate, determining there were no grounds to vacate under the FAA where the petition to confirm was not procedurally improper, the arbitrator did not exceed her authority, there was no demonstrated undue partiality by the arbitrator, and the AAA did not err in reappointing the same arbitrator.

  • Ecopetrol S.A. v. Offshore Exploration and Production, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-10024-JLR (S.D.N.Y May 23, 2024)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an interim supplemental award and denied motion to vacate the final supplemental award.  The arbitral tribunal at issue was tasked with clarifying the terms of earlier-issued arbitration awards on remand.  Following a hearing, the tribunal issued an interim supplemental award and final supplemental award.  Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate the final supplemental award, disagreeing with petitioner’s contention that the tribunal had exceeded its authority in deciding an issue not presented to it. 

  • Professional Sport Service FI OY v. Puck Agency, LLC, No. 24-CV-2022-KMK (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2024)

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, noting the “deferential standard” applied to judgments of arbitration panels.  Given that the opposing party did not assert any defenses against enforcement specified in the New York Convention, the court confirmed the award and directed the petitioner to submit an updated proposed judgment. 

  • Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 23-7008 (D.C. Cir. May 14, 2024)

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Romania’s motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from judgment.  Romania contended that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction enforce the underlying arbitration award because the parties’ bilateral agreement to arbitrate was invalid under EU law.  The district decided, and the court of appeals affirmed, that EU law was inapplicable where the dispute preceded Romania’s accession to the EU in 2007. 

  • White v. Titlemax of Virginia, Inc., No. 23-1595 (4th Cir. May 1, 2024)

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s orders granting appellees’ applications to confirm arbitral awards under Section 9 of the FAA, holding that the applications failed to identify an independent basis for the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

  • Crescent Petroleum Company International Ltd. v. National Iranian Oil Company, No. 22-CV-1361-JMC (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 2024)

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for default judgment and confirmed the parties’ arbitration award.  Court had subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception to immunity of a foreign sovereign and personal jurisdiction where defendant was properly served by email.  Once satisfied that it had jurisdiction to proceed, court found all elements to enforce the arbitration award were met under the New York Convention.

  • Van Andel, LLM v. Lindberg, No. 23-CV-00879-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 2024)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that a provisional award may be enforced.  Court weighed the fact that NAI arbitration rules considered the award to be binding and courts have previously enforced provisional equitable arbitration awards.  Court further determined the petition was not time barred because the FAA’s limitation period is “permissive” and does not automatically bar the confirmation of an award after one year.

  • Pilot, Inc., v. Aukey Technolology Co., No. 22-CV-02408-SKC-SBP (D. Colo. Apr. 29, 2024)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment to confirm the parties’ foreign arbitral award.  Court found all relevant requirements for the entry of default judgement were satisfied – court had proper subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, the venue was appropriate, and plaintiff provided sufficient proof of damages owed.

  • Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC v. Alico, LLC, No. 23-CV-02587-ILRL-JVM (E.D. La. Apr. 29, 2024)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgement and confirmed the final arbitration award because plaintiffs “demonstrate[d] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact” in its application for confirmation of its arbitration award. 

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP v. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., No. 1:23-CV-08993-AT  (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2024)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award finding there was no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to the confirmation of the award and the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitrator’s authority. Court further rejected petitioner’s motion to seal the arbitration award and hearing transcripts from the public record finding the parties’ confidentiality agreement did not overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents and the materials could have could have been redacted for privilege.

  • Shenzhen Yunzhongge Technology Co. Ltd., v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 2:23-CV-01693-TL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 17, 2024)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award under the FAA for liquidated damages in connection with plaintiff’s alleged violation of defendant’s online sales policies.  Court held that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law, the award did not violate public policy, and the award was not a completely irrational interpretation of the underlying contract.  Court granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm the award.

  • High Hope Zhongtian Corp. v. Peking Linen Inc., No. 22-CV-07568-VSB-SN (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2024)

    Court recommended that plaintiff’s arbitration award be confirmed.  Court found that confirmation was appropriate because the defendant had failed to appear in the action, had not asserted any defenses against enforcement of the arbitration, and thus had not disputed any of the proposed findings of fact.

  • Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership, v. Qin, No. 23-0747 (2d Cir. Apr. 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.

  • Lam v. Rise Huge Corporation Ltd., No. 22-CV-06094-TLT (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2024)

    Court dismissed action to uphold international arbitration award under the New York Convention for lack of personal jurisdiction where a Hong Kong defendant’s only contact with California was a contract for a one time stock purchase with a California defendant.

  • Urangesellschaft MBH v. Nynco Trading Ltd, No. 23-CV-07713-DEH (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2024)

    Court granted motion to confirm ICC arbitration award rendered in Switzerland under the New York Convention, where respondent did not oppose the motion. Court awarded petitioner’s attorney’s fees and costs, and pre-judgment interest at a rate of nine percent, finding it was common practice within courts in the Second Circuit.

  • Wilson v. Carnival Corp., No. 23-10122 (11th Cir. Apr. 4, 2024)

    Court of Appeals affirmed district’s court decision to dismiss plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award with its legal seat in Panama, finding under the Panama Convention that only courts with primary jurisdiction, the legal seat of the arbitration, can vacate an arbitral award.

  • Noble Prestige Limited v. Horn, No. 20-CV-82357-RS (S.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2024) 

    Court granted petition to confirm and enforce arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention and the FAA.  Court found that respondents were barred under Chapter 2 of the FAA from raising defenses in opposition to the petition because they did not serve notice of motion to vacate, modify, or correct arbitral award within the three-month limitations period.

  • Bua International Limited v. Domtec International LLC., No. 23-CV-00206-DCN (D. Idaho Apr. 1, 2024)

    Court denied petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, finding that while the arbitrator ordered respondent to pay for petitioner’s costs of the arbitration, it did not award future costs such as attorneys’ fees incurred in confirming the award.

  • Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd., 22-CV-01613-JLR (W.D. Wash. Apr. 1, 2024)

    Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate and granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm  arbitration award.  Court found arbitrator plausibly interpreted the parties’ agreement and did not disregard the applicable law, nor act irrationally, where the arbitrator explicitly addressed, but denied, plaintiff’s claims.

  • Deutsch Telekom AG v. Republic of India, No. 1:21-CV-01070-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2024)

    Court granted petition to confirm a Swiss arbitral award, rejecting respondent’s forum non conveniens argument because the doctrine is unavailable in proceedings to confirm foreign arbitration awards in the D.C. Circuit. Court held it had jurisdiction under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and rejected respondent’s argument that it was entitled to additional briefing on its merits defenses under the New York Convention.

  • Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, No. 23-0747 (2d Cir. Mar. 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.

  • Employers’ Innovative Network, LLC v. Bridgeport Benefits, Inc., No. 18-CV-01082 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 18, 2024)

    Court granted defendants’ joint motion to confirm and enforce arbitration award under the New York Convention, finding plaintiffs failed to prove that confirmation of the award would be contrary to public policy considering the arbitrator’s failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest. Court concluded that plaintiffs’ failure to challenge the arbitrator in Bermuda foreclosed their public policy defense and regardless, plaintiffs failed to conclusively offer proof of, or prejudice resulting from, the arbitrator’s perceived partiality.

  • Pott v. World Capital Properties, Ltd., 21-CV-23942-JAL (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2024)

    Court recommended the recognition and enforcement of the parties’ foreign arbitral award and found that respondent’s motion to dismiss should be denied.  Court found no applicable exception for non-recognition under the Panama Convention, where respondent raised arguments already determined by arbitration and tribunal provided respondent due process.

  • Simplot India LLC v. Himalaya Food International LTD, No. 23-CV-01612-RK-TJB (D.N.J. Mar. 15, 2024)

    Court denied petitioners’ motion to confirm foreign arbitral award, holding there was no personal jurisdiction over respondent. Court found unpersuasive petitioners’ argument that a related domestic company was respondent’s alter ego; that respondent consented to general jurisdiction by registering to do business in New Jersey and accepting service by its designated agent; or that court may exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction over the related domestic company’s debts owed to respondent, because respondent lacked sufficient interest or control in the property.

  • Vamed Management und Service GMBH v. Gabonese Republic, No. 22-CV-03737-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2024)

    Court granted motion for a default judgment and confirmation of the underlying arbitration award against respondent, where Gabon had not filed an appearance in the matter or otherwise participated in the confirmation proceedings.  Shearman & Sterling is counsel for Vamed Management und Service GMBH in connection with this case.

  • Metropolitan Municipality of Lima v. Rutas de Lima S.A.C., No. 20-CV-02155-ACR (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2024)


    Court denied petition to vacate two arbitration awards and granted cross-motions to confirm them, where grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the awards under the New York Convention were not met. Court noted that two independent tribunals had rejected claims of bribery related to an underlying infrastructure contract to build, improve, and maintain urban highways in Peru and declined to accept petitioner’s argument that denial of the bribery before the tribunal was fraudulent. Court also disagreed that the second arbitral tribunal committed misconduct in admitting some, but not the annexes, to a prosecutorial indictment it introduced after the close of evidence.

  • Cowin Technology Co., Ltd. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 23-CV-03054-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2024)

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award and granted respondents’ cross-motion to confirm the award, where petitioner had not demonstrated that one of the seven exclusive grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the award under Article V of the New York Convention applied.

  • Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Pilot, Inc., No. 23-CV-00854-PAB-SBP (D. Colo. Mar. 8, 2024)

    Court granted motion to dismiss petition to vacate arbitration award and ordered that the arbitration award be confirmed, where petitioner did not sufficiently allege that the arbitration award was in manifest disregard of the law or that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the terms of the arbitration agreement.

  • Storyteller Production Co. v. Audient Capital GP Ltd., No. 24-CV-01664-PA-MRW (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2024)

    Court dismissed petition to confirm arbitration award because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court found petition did not properly allege citizenship of any party but did grant petitioner leave to amend in order to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.

  • Valentino S.p.A. v. Mrinalini, Inc., No. 23-CV-02319-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2024)

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that respondent failed to prove grounds under Article V of the New York Convention to refuse or defer the recognition of the award.  Court denied petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees, finding that respondent’s actions did not warrant that exceptional award but found petitioner’s expenses would be allowed to the extent that costs are available to the prevailing party.

  • Stonex Markets LLC v. Cooperativa de Caficultores del Suroeste de Antioquia, No. 23-CV-00513-JGLC-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2024)

    No. 23-CV-00513-JGLC-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2024)
    Court accepted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to enter a motion for default judgment to confirm arbitration award finding the recommendation to be well reasoned and grounded in fact and law.

  • Telecom Business Solutions, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., No. 22-CV-01761-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2024)

    Court granted motion for an anti-suit injunction against defendant where a foreign litigation would frustrate the arbitration process by seeking to re-litigate issues already resolved by an arbitral tribunal and undermine the court’s confirmation of the arbitration award.

  • Devas Multimedia Private Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 20-36024 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2024)

    Court of Appeals denied petitions for rehearing en banc, finding, contrary to all other federal circuit courts, that in addition to fulfilling the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requirements, plaintiffs must prove “minimum contacts” to assert personal jurisdiction over a foreign state, including when enforcing an international arbitration award.

  • Telecom Business Solution, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., No. 23-144 (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 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.

  • New Frontier Investment AG v. BitCenter, Inc., No. 23-MC-80154-PHK (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2024)

    Court denied petition to partially vacate arbitration award under the provisions of the FAA and the New York Convention finding that petitioner failed to show the arbitrator manifestly disregarded Hungarian law, or that the award was completely irrational in light of the parties’ contractual agreement or violated the public policy of either the forum state—California—or the United States.

  • Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Gussi, S.A. de C.V., No. 23-55123 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2024)

    Court of Appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitral award holding that (1) district court had jurisdiction under § 203 of Chapter 2 of the FAA and 28 USC § 1331; (2) district court erred in ruling that California law governed service because federal procedural law generally governs service when a party files in federal district court, however, under federal law, plaintiff sufficiently served defendant; and (3) district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to extend comity to a purported Mexican court order enjoining plaintiff from seeking to confirm the award because defendant did not certify the genuineness of document or the translation.

  • Conti 11. Container Schiffarts-GMBH & Co. KG M.S., MSC Flaminia v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., No. 22-30808 (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 2024)

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision to confirm a $200 million London arbitration award, finding the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant.  Court of appeals agreed that when assessing personal jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award under the New York Convention, a court should consider contacts related to the underlying dispute, not just the arbitration itself.  However, it found defendant had not waived its personal jurisdiction defense and that the sole contact with the forum, the loading of tanks in New Orleans, did not confer specific personal jurisdiction over defendant.

  • LLC SPC Stileks v. The Republic of Moldova, No. 14-CV-01921-CRC (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2024)

    Court denied respondent’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without prejudice.  Although the court was inclined to agree that such relief was warranted, it held that it would be premature to grant the motion given that plaintiff may appeal the Paris Court of Appeals’ decision vacating arbitration award against respondent in favor of plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest.

  • Equipav S.A. Pavimentação, Engenharia e Comercio Ltda. v. Bertin, No. 22-CV-04594-PGG (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2024)

    Court granted motion to confirm order of attachment as to respondent’s assets, finding that (i) there was a cause of action; (ii) it was probable that petitioner would succeed on the merits; (iii) one or more grounds for attachment pursuant to NY CPLR § 6201 existed; (iv) the amount demanded from respondent exceeded all counterclaims known to petitioner; and (v) the attachment was needed to obtain jurisdiction and also appropriate to secure payment from respondent.  Court also granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award against respondent and nonparty and denied respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding it had quasi in rem jurisdiction over respondent’s property located in its district.  Court also denied respondent’s motion for a stay, finding that the Europcar factors weighed in favor of denying a stay.

  • Zhongtie Dacheng (Zhuhai) Investment Management Co Ltd v. Yan, No. 8:22-CV-00461-KK-ADS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024)

    Court confirmed an arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention, holding that service was proper because respondents were mailed notice of the proceedings to their last known addresses listed on publicly available documents and their government-issued IDs. 

  • Epicenter Loss Recovery LLC v. Burford Capital Limited, No. 18-CV-03300-DJH (D. Ariz. Jan. 9, 2024)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss following the issuance of a final arbitration award from the LCIA.  Court, having previously stayed litigation pending a final award, did not maintain continued jurisdiction under the LCIA Rules or the FAA, where plaintiff challenged the validity of the award, finding the primary jurisdiction in which to challenge the award would be in the English courts.

  • In re Refinería de Cartagena S.A.S., No. 23-MC-00455-JPC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2024) 

    Court granted 28 USC § 1782 request for leave to serve document and deposition subpoenas on defendants.  Court reasoned that the discovery requests were relevant and “for use” in foreign restructuring proceedings, and that petitioner qualified as an interested party, as the proposed restructuring plans could discharge debtors from amounts owed to petitioner under an arbitration award.  In weighing the discretionary Intel factors, court did not find the discovery requests to be overly intrusive or burdensome in light of the court ordered modifications limiting the scope of each request.

  • Anhui Light Industries International Co., Ltd. v. Dream Express Inc., 23-CV-05942-RGK-PD (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2024)

    Court denied petition to confirm a CIETAC arbitration award under the New York Convention, finding respondent was not a party to the contracts, which were entered into fraudulently in respondent’s name, and therefore, did not consent to arbitration.  

  • BBC Chartering Carriers GMBH & Co., KG, v. Hsin Silk Road Shipping Limited, No. 23-CV-06043-KK-MRW (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2024)

    Court granted motion to confirm foreign arbitral award and motion for default judgment pursuant to the award.

  • Jiakeshu Technology Limited v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, No. 22-CV-10119-JGLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2024)

    Court denied petitioner’s petition to vacate the arbitral award and granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award, finding petitioner did not rely on any of the grounds under the New York Convention or the FAA on which courts may vacate an arbitral award, instead relying on the “severely limited” manifest disregard standard and other unrecognized bases in the Second Circuit such as “complete irrationality” and violation of “strong public policy.”

View All