The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention. These court decisions are published in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration since its Volume I (1976).
For instructions on how to search for court decisions per topic and per country in this website, please refer to our helpful access guide here.
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, 31 August 2023, Case No. 8:22-cv-2158-TPB-CPT
(United States of America v. Water Quality Insurance Syndicate v. The United Kingdom Mutual Steam Ship Assurance Association Limited)
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 18 August 2023, No. 21-14408
(Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A., SACYR, S.A. et al. v. Autoridad del Canal de Panama)
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1 August 2023, No. 20-36024, No. 22-35085, No. 22-35103, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01360-TSZ
(Devas Multimedia Private Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 18 July 2023, CIVIL ACTION No. 21-2845
(Jiangsu Beier Decoration Materials Co., Ltd. v. Angle World LLC)
The court discusses the second alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitration agreement is “contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirement to supply the original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof to prove the prima facie validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as the application of more favorable municipal laws that do not provide for this requirement.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 13 July 2023, Nos. 21-5072 & 21-5081
(Baker Hughes Services International, LLC v. Joshi Technologies International, Inc.)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 12 July 2023, 22-825-cv
(Olin Holdings Limited v. State of Libya)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 29 June 2023, 22-cv-7503 (PKC); 21-cv-6704 (PKC)
(Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A., v. Republic of Haiti, Bureau de Monétisation des Programmes d'aide au Développement)
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 17 April 2023, No. 22-832
(Iraq Telecom Limited v. IBL Bank S.A.L.)
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 13 April 2023, No. 20-13039
(Corporación AIC, SA v. Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita S.A.)
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
United States District Court, District of Columbia, 29 March 2023, Civil Case No. 21-3249 (RJL)
(Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC (as successor in title of AES Solar Energy Coöperatief U.A. and Ampere Equity Fund B.V. v. The Kingdom of Spain)
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Western Division, 23 March 2023, No. 22-CV-4047-CJW-KEM
(The United Mexican States v. Joshua Dean Nelson)
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, 17 March 2023, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-04751-VMC
(Various Insurers, Reinsurers And Retrocessionaires Subscribing to Policy Numbers 106/IN/230/0/0, 28807G19, B080130181G19 B080131297G19, B080127577G19, B080130231G19, B080130291G19, B080130328G19, B080128807G19 and B080130331G19 DBD as subrogee of Shariket Kahraba Hadjret En Nouss v. General Electric International, Inc., General Electric Company, GE Power Services Engineering, GE Power, and Various John Doe Corporations)
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
United States District Court, District of Columbia, 26 January 2023, Civil Action No. 22-170 (BAH)
(Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co., Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria)
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 17 January 2023, 2:22-cv-01013-NJB-MBN
(Kronlage Family Limited Partnership v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s and other Insurers Subscribing to Binding Authority Number B604510568622021, and Independent Specialty Insurance Co. (ISIC))
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 13 January 2023, 13-cv-2581 (PKC) (JLC)
(CBF Indústria De Gusa S/A, Da Terra Siderúrgica Ltda, Fergumar - Ferro Gusa Do Maranhão Ltda, Ferguminas Siderúrgica Ltda, Gusa Nordeste S/A, Sidepar - Siderúrgica Do Pará S/A and Siderúrgica União S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., American Metals & Coal International, Inc., Prime Carbon GmbH, Primetrade, Inc. and Hans Mende)
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 10 January 2023, Case No. 21-1196 and No. 21-1324
(Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua S.A.B. de C.V. et al.)
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 21 December 2022, No. 21-7141
(The Republic of Moldova v. LLC SPC Stileks)
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 3 November 2022, No. 21-3143
(Jiangsu Beier Decoration Materials Co., Ltd. v. Angle World LLC)
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 3 October 2022, No. 20-4248
(Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A.)
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 5 August 2022, No. 20-14206
(Ryan Maunes Maglana, on his own behalf and as a class representative of all other similarly situated Filipino crewmembers trapped aboard CELEBRITY cruise vessels et al. v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.)
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 8 July 2022, Docket Nos. 19-3159(L), 19-3361
(Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited et al. v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 8 July 2022, No. 17-10944
(Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC et al. v. Coverteam SAS, a foreign corporation now known as GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp.)
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 24 June 2022, No. 20-1633
(Rachan Damidi Reddy v. Rashid A. Buttar)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
United States District Court, District of Columbia, 14 June 2022, Civil Action No. 20-1795 (ABJ)
(Gebre LLC v. Kyrgyz Republic)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
United States District Court, Southern District of California, 9 May 2022, Case No.: 3:21-cv-1425-W-DEB
(General Marine II, LLC v. Michael Kelly)
The court discusses how to determine whether the document supplied is an award capable of being recognized and enforced, including whether the award is duly authenticated, and whether a copy is duly certified; whether a prior interim and/or partial award should be supplied together with the final award.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirement to supply the original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof to prove the prima facie validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as the application of more favorable municipal laws that do not provide for this requirement.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Court granted confirmation of an award rendered in New York between two Haitian parties. The respondent argued that it had been unable to defend itself in the arbitration – an argument that the Court constructed as being brought under Art. V(1(b) of the New York Convention – because the arbitrators had held a hearing in the middle of a COVID-19 surge in Haiti, less than three weeks after the assassination of Haiti's President, and despite the respondent's request that the hearing be postponed. The Court concluded that while these were certainly significant and relevant factors to consider, the record showed that the respondent did have an opportunity to present its case at the arbitration hearing, which was conducted in New York. The Court also denied the contention that the arbitral panel had been improperly formed because two of the arbitrators were former partners of the claimant's counsel in a law firm, and the third arbitrator was directly associated with the same counsel via membership in an organization. The Court explained that Art. V(1)(d) of the Convention merely required that the arbitrators be selected in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement, and that the arbitrators had been so selected in this case. The Court finally rejected the claim that enforcing the improperly procured award against against a longstanding ally was contrary to the public policy of the United States within the meaning of the public policy exception in Art. V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. The Court noted that the law of the Circuit was that this exception had to be construed very narrowly to encompass only those circumstances where enforcement would violate the most basic notions of morality and justice. This was not the case here, and enforcement would actually further the United States' strong public policy in favor of international arbitration
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 26 January 2022, 21-cv-6704 (PKC)
(Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, Bureau de Monétisation de Programmes d'Aide au Développement)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Court held that it had jurisdiction over a petition to enjoin arbitration under the New York Convention. Although the Convention did not explicitly authorize a court to enjoin a pending arbitration, and the Ninth Circuit had not yet determined this issue, the Court agreed with other district courts that the plain language of Sect. 203 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) vests district courts with jurisdiction over an action or proceeding falling under the New York Convention, and Sect. 202 in turn provides the definition of an arbitration agreement or arbitral award that falls under the Convention. The arbitration agreement in the present case fell under the Convention – since it arose from a legal relationship which was commercial in nature and not entirely domestic in scope – and consequently the Court had jurisdiction.
United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, 4 January 2022, Case No. 20-CV-08033-LHK
(Youlin Wang v. Richard Kahn et al.)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the 2020 decision of the District Court (US no. 1003), which had confirmed an award rendered in France under the UNCITRAL Rules in a dispute arising under the Russia-Ukraine BIT. The Court held that the first instance court had neither exceeded its discretion nor made legal error when it denied Ukraine's motion for supplemental briefing on the issue of whether Art. (V)(1)(c) prevented enforcement, filed years after the parties had initially briefed the merits. Nor did the lower court exceed its authority under the New York Convention by modifying the award, because, the Court of Appeals found, the analysis section and the dispositif of the award were not internally inconsistent as to the provision of damages. The Court of Appeals further affirmed the finding of the district court that neither the public policy reservation nor the improper composition objection justified refusing enforcement under the Convention. First, the United States do not have a policy against enforcing arbitral awards predicated on (alleged) underlying violations of foreign law. Second, the failure of one of the arbitrators to disclose that Tatneft's law firm appointed him to another panel did not give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. In applying the justifiable doubts standard, the Court referred to the 2004 IBA Guidelines as authority on the ethics of international arbitrators, and found that even under a strict interpretation of the IBA Guidelines, the arbitrator did not have a duty to disclose.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 28 December 2021, No. 20-7091
(AO Tatneft v. Ukraine, c/o Mr. Pavlo Petrenko, Minister of Justice)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The District Court denied the motion to vacate a partial and a final award, and granted the cross-motion to confirm them. The movants argued that the awards should be vacated because the arbitrators had failed to disclose relevant information before the commencement of the proceedings and had only provided it at the request of the movants after the partial award had been rendered. The Court held, on the fact of the case, that while the principle of the impartiality of arbitrators was a well-defined and dominant public policy in the United States, and therefore its violation fell within the scope of Art. V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, there had been no violation of public policy here. Also on the facts of the case, the District Court rejected the argument that the evident partiality of the arbitrators manifested itself in the fact that the movants had been unable to present their case and that the arbitral proceeding had not been in accordance with the agreement of the parties within the meaning of Arts. V(1)(b) and V(1)(d) of the Convention, because the panel misinterpreted the contract between the parties and did not address certain evidence. The Court stressed that it could not review the merits of the award, and that it was only concerned with whether the movants had had opportunity to defend their case in the arbitration. The claim that the panel had adopted arguments that were not made by the parties was disproved by the evidence.
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 9 December 2021, Civil Action No. 20-24867-Civ-Scola
(Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A. and others v. Autoridad del Canal de Panama)
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision that there was no binding arbitration agreement amongst the parties. The Court of Appeals, however, noted that the District Court had incorrectly treated the absence of a binding arbitration agreement as a jurisdictional issue. The Court ruled that the absence of a binding arbitration agreement is a question of merits relating to the grounds for refusal of enforcement under Article V(1)(a) and 2(a) of the New York Convention and does not impact the jurisdiction of the enforcement court.
The arbitration was initiated by the appellants under an arbitration clause contained in a 1933 land concession agreement between Saudi Arabia and Chevron Corporation’s (Chevron) predecessor, Standard Oil Company of California (SOCAL). By 1948, SOCAL had assigned the land concession rights to its subsidiary, Aramco, and had become a minority shareholder of Aramco. In 1949, the Saudi Arabian Government transferred ownership over certain plots of land covered by the land concession agreement to Mr. Al-Qarqani and certain other recipients. The transfer deed contained a lease agreement between Mr. Al-Qarqani, the other land recipients and Aramco. In the 1970s - 1980s, Aramco was nationalized by the Saudi Arabian Government and was later dissolved.
The appellants are the heirs of the Mr. Al-Qarqani. They initiated the arbitration against Chevron seeking payment of rent under the 1949 transfer deed. The arbitral tribunal upheld jurisdiction and awarded in favour of the appellants. The Court of Appeals refused enforcement of the award on the ground that there was no binding arbitration agreement between the appellants and Chevron, noting that (i) the appellants were not party to the 1933 land concession agreement, which was executed between Saudi Arabia and SOCAL; (ii) the appellants had not demonstrated that they may assert Saudi Arabia’s interests under the 1933 land concessions agreement; (iii) it was not established that the 1949 transfer deed included a transfer of rights to Mr. Al-Qarqani to enforce the arbitration clause under the 1993 land concession agreement; and (iv) in any event, Chevron’s rights and obligations under the 1933 concession agreement were extinguished once SOCAL relinquished control of Aramco.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 12 August 2021
(Waleed Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al Hood Al-Qarqani & Ors. v. Chevron Corporation & Anr.)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
The District Court ruled that the tribunal’s failure to render the award within the six-month period as stipulated under the CIETAC arbitration rules did not fall within the scope of Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention (arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties), as the tribunal had received permission from the President of the Arbitration Court of the CEITAC to extend the deadline for rendering the award. The District Court further ruled that a delay in rendering the arbitral award does not constitute a
violation of the United States’ public policy for the purposes of Article V(2)(b) of the Convention. The Court emphasized that the public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) must be construed very narrowly to encompass only those circumstances where enforcement would violate the most basic notions of morality and justice. The Court further rejected respondent’s contention that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding attorney’s fees and costs to claimants, noting that while the parties’ contracts appeared ambiguous as to whether attorney’s fees could be awarded by a tribunal, pursuant to the CIETAC Rules, the tribunal had the power to award attorney’s fees.
United States District Court, Northern District of New York, 3 August 2021
(Chongqing Loncin Engine Parts Co. Ltd. & Anr v. New Monarch Machine Tool, Inc.)
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The District Court granted the petitioner's motion for default judgment and confirmed the arbitral award on the respondent's failure to respond to the petition for confirmation despite completion of service.
Prior to confirming the award, the Court determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the action as the award was a foreign arbitration award pertaining to commercial matters and was rendered in a signatory State to the New York Convention. The Court further ascertained that it had personal jurisdiction over the Republic of Guinea and that service had been properly completed by the petitioner. The Court observed that enforcing courts have little discretion in refusing or deferring enforcement of foreign arbitral award and that they may do so only if the grounds explicitly set forth in Article V of the Convention are satisfied. The respondent bears the burden of proving the application of any of the grounds for refusal to enforce an award under Article V(1) of the Convention, which was not satisfied in this case as the respondent defaulted in the proceedings. On its own review of the grounds under Articles V(1) and V(2) of the Convention, the Court concluded that none of grounds for refusal of enforcement existed in this case.
United States District Court, District of Columbia, 14 June 2021
(Compagnie Sahélienne d'Entreprise v. Republic of Guinea)
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
The District Court remanded the matter to the State Court on the grounds that the arbitration agreement was not covered by the New York Convention as it was domestic in all aspects.
The arbitration agreement was contained in the plaintiff's partnership agreement with the defendant. Both parties were U.S. citizens (the plaintiff resided and practised law in California and the defendant was a Delaware limited liability partnership firm), the partnership agreement was subject to the laws of the State of Delaware and the enforcement of an eventual award under the agreement was envisaged to take place within the U.S. The Court rejected the relevance of the defendant firm's foreign patronage, holding that defendant's status as part of a Swiss-law recognised group of companies did not imply that the partnership agreement between the parties contemplated foreign performance. The Court ruled that to fall under the Convention, the parties' relationship must have contemplated overseas action or involvement, which was missing under the agreement. For the Court, the plaintiff's handling of international clients as a Dentons partner was not sufficient to satisfy the "performance abroad" requirement.
United States District Court, Central District of California, 11 June 2021
(Jinshu John Zhang v. Dentons U.S. LLP & Ors.)
The District Court confirmed the arbitral award following the respondent's failure to file a response to the petition for recognition and enforcement and upon finding that the petitioner had satisfied the statutory conditions for recognition and enforcement of the award. The Court reasoned that (i) a failure to file a response in opposition to a motion is ground for granting the motion by default; and (ii) confirmation under the New York Convention is a summary proceeding in nature, which is not intended to involve complex factual determinations, other than a determination of the limited statutory conditions for confirmation or grounds for refusal to confirm.
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, 28 May 2021
(The Government of the Cooks Islands v. Dwane L. Hubbart)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The District Court rejected the respondent's objections to the recognition and enforcement of the two awards before it, finding that the respondent had not raised any grounds under Article V of the New York Convention. The respondent had raised three arguments to oppose the recognition and enforcement of the awards, namely (i) that the arbitrator lacked impartiality and had favoured the petitioner; (ii) that respondent did not have the financial ability to pay the awards; and (iii) that the petitioner had made certain admission in settlement discussions between the parties following the issuance of the award, which admissions, according to respondent, were sufficient reason to refuse enforcement of the awards. The Court dismissed the first objection on the basis that the allegations were unsubstantiated. As to the second objection, the Court ruled that financial inability of the award debtor is not a ground for refusal to enforce an award under the New York Convention. In relation to the third objection, the Court found that the parties' settlement discussions were not relevant to the question of whether the awards should be confirmed.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 5 May 2021
(d'Amico Dry D.A.C v. Tremond Metals Corp.)
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Roger Corman hired Martin Kenney & Co., a BVI law firm, to render legal services in connection with Corman’s family trusts through a Letter of Engagement (LOE). The relationship was later terminated and the ensuing dispute referred to arbitration in the British Virgin Islands as provided for in the LOE.
The District Court confirmed the arbitral award, dismissing the respondent's objections to enforcement under Article V(1)(a), (b) and (d) and Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. The dispute in the arbitration related to non-payment by the respondent of the petitioner's legal fees under the letter of engagement signed by the parties. The respondent did not participate in the arbitration and sought to challenge the enforcement of the award.
Invoking Articles V(1)(b) and V(2)(b) of the Convention, the respondent contended that it was precluded from presenting its case in the arbitration as the engagement letter between the parties stipulated that if either party failed to fund half the arbitration costs in a timely manner, the other party may proceed to a hearing with full evidence and the defaulting party shall be debarred from filing any evidence at the hearing. The respondent agued that such provision was also against public policy. The Court rejected the respondent's argument, finding in the facts of the case that respondent had chosen not to participate in the arbitration as opposed to being precluded from participating. The court rejected the public policy objection on the ground that the parties had mutually agreed to the cost-sharing provision of the arbitration and that costs-sharing did not imply control over the arbitration.
Invoking Articles V(1)(a) and V(2)(b) of the Convention, the respondent contended that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. The Court rejected the respondent's objection holding that the respondent had failed to meet the test under Article V(1)(a), which required evidence that arbitration is invalid either under the law governing it, or failing such indication under the law of seat of the arbitration. The Court noted that no submissions had been made regarding the unconscionability of the arbitration agreement under the laws of the BVI (law governing the arbitration agreement). The court examined the unconscionability of the agreement under the laws of California, being the enforcement jurisdiction and found that unconscionability was not met (no evidence of unequal bargaining power or and overly harsh or one-sided outcome). For these reasons, the court also rejected the respondent's public policy objection.
The respondent invoked Article V(1)(d) of the Convention alleging that (i) the arbitrator was not a member of the BVI Bar Association as per the agreement of the parties under the arbitration agreement; and (ii) the arbitrator was appointed by the PCA Secretary General instead of the President of the BVI Bar Association as had been agreed by the parties. The Court rejected the first argument finding that the arbitrator had been a member of the BVI Bar Association in the year in which the arbitration was held. The Court further held that the method of appointment did not violate the arbitration agreement as it was in accordance with procedure under the UNCITRAL rules, which were the applicable arbitration rules in the arbitration.
The Respondent further contended that it did not received notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration (Article V(1)(b)). The Court rejected this objection courts have found the notice provision of the New York Convention to mean that the arbitration must comply with the U.S. standards for procedural due process. The Court found on the facts of the case that the service on the respondent complied with the terms of the arbitration agreement and the due process rules under the UNCITRAL rules.
United States District Court, Central District of California, 15 April 2021
(Martin Kenney & Co. v. Roger Corman)
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
Public policy:The court discusses the consequences of the default of a party in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award against it.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
The District Court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which was originally hearing the plaintiff's employment discrimination claims, on the basis that the arbitration agreement invoked by the defendant did not fall within the scope of the New York Convention.
The Court determined that although the plaintiff's employment discrimination claims related to the arbitration agreement under the employment contract, the said arbitration agreement was not covered by the New York Convention. The Court observed that to fall under the Convention, the arbitration agreement (i) must arise out of a legal relationship; (ii) which is commercial in nature; and (iii) which is not entirely domestic in scope. The Court held that whilst the first condition was met as an employee signing an arbitration agreement with their employer is an example of a legal relationship formation, the second and third conditions were not met in this case. With respect to the second condition (i.e., the commercial requirement), the Court held that there must be a showing of an interstate commerce connection and that the scope of petitioner's duties with the defendant did not have such interstate commerce connection. With respect to the third condition, the Court found that the arbitration agreement was domestic in nature. The Court ruled that the sole fact of the plaintiff's non-U.S. citizenship was not sufficient to place the arbitration agreement within the scope of the Convention and that more foreign ties beyond citizenship of the parties were required to fall under the Convention. Referring to Article V(2)(b) of the Convention, the Court further held that it would be contrary to public policy if the arbitration agreement was held as falling under the Convention solely due to the plaintiff's status as a foreign national as it would vest federal courts with jurisdiction over any arbitration agreement bypassing the amount in dispute requirement ordinarily needed to obtain diversity jurisdiction. According to the Court, protecting its citizens from employment discrimination qualified as a compelling state interest and to haphazardly sweeping these claims into the jurisdiction of federal law under the guise of enforcing an international treaty raised serious concerns of an incursion into state sovereignty.
United States District Court, District of California, 8 April 2021
(Lilian Padilla Ayala v. Teledyne Defense Electronics & Ors.)
The court discusses the impact of the nationality of the parties on the application of the Convention.
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The District Court granted the petitioner's motion to confirm the arbitral award, rejecting the respondent's contention that it was unable to present its case in the arbitration (Article V(1)(b) of the Convention). The respondent sought to resist enforcement of the arbitral award on the grounds that the panel had refused to postpone the hearing on respondent's request The Court held that it would not intervene with the panel's decision to proceed with the hearing if any reasonable basis for it existed. In the facts of the case, the Court found that the respondent had demonstrated its intention not to participate in the hearing before the panel (amongst others by forbidding its counsel to participate in the hearing, citing, at the last minute, medical reasons for non-appearance without providing any supporting evidence) and that, therefore, there was a reasonable basis for the panel to proceed with the hearing in respondent's absence - "the Respondent took a chance when he chose not to participate in an arbitral process to which he had agreed. That gambit failed; and the Court believes that Respondent should be held to live with the consequences of his choice. Put more precisely, because Respondent voluntarily walked away from the arbitration, he was not deprived of a fundamentally fair hearing when the Panel then resolved the case without Respondent's input".
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 12 March 2021
(Bartlit Beck LLP v. Kazuo Okada)
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
The plaintiff, a seaman, argued that the arbitration provisions in the two contracts he signed contradicted each other and were therefore unenforceable. The Court disagreed and compelled arbitration of the dispute, finding that the four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were met: there was an agreement in writing within the meaning of the Convention, which provided for arbitration in the territory of a Convention signatory and arose out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which was considered commercial; and a party to the agreement was not an American citizen, or the commercial relationship had some reasonable relation with one or more foreign states. Further, the Court found that there were no affirmative defenses, noting that at the arbitration-enforcement stage the only affirmative defense to arbitration is a defense that demonstrates that the arbitration agreement is "null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed".
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 18 February 2021, Case No. 20-24829-CIV-COOKE/O'SULLIVAN
(Thamalassen Sungaralingum v. Carnival Corporation and Heinemann American Cruise Retail, LLC)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The Court granted the motion to compel arbitration in relation to a dispute concerning an insurance policy. It found that non-signatories to a contract could enforce the arbitration provision in the policy because traditional principles of state law allow a contract to be enforced by or against non-parties to the contract through several theories, including estoppel. Here, the claims arose out of and related directly to the insurance policy containing the arbitration provision, and the non-signatory defendant could enforce the arbitration provision against Clean Pro under the doctrine of estoppel.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 18 February 2021, CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1550 SECTION: "G"(1)
(Clean Pro Carpet & Upholstery Care, Inc., et al. v. Upper Pontalba of Old Metairie Condominium Association, Inc., et al.)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
The Court granted a motion to compel arbitration. It held that by selecting the Dominican Chamber of Commerce in their arbitration provision, the parties implicitly incorporated the Arbitration Law of the Dominican Republic and its kompetenz-kompetenz principles in their contract. Hence, issues of arbitrability were to be decided by the arbitrators. The Court denied the arguments that it should nevertheless decide arbitrability under the Panama Convention, and that it should decide arbitrability where the party seeking to compel arbitration was a non-signatory. Finally, the Court found that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 5 February 2021, Case No. 20-21713-CIV-MARTINEZ/AOR
(Eco Brands, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, derivatively by and through its member Midas Financial Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company v. Eco Brands, LLC)
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
The District Court referred a dispute to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement, holding that all the jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were met: there was an arbitration agreement in writing within the meaning of the Convention, which provided for arbitration in the territory of a Convention signatory and arose out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which was considered commercial. The fourth requirement – whether at least one party to the agreement was not an American citizen, or the commercial relationship had some reasonable relation with one or more foreign states – was disputed. The Court held that although the defendants had not provided a complete list of all the underwriters participating in the policy, it appeared from the record that the relationship was not entirely between citizens of the United States. The Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the Convention did not apply because it was reverse-preempted by Louisiana state law on insurance, which allegedly applied by operation of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which commits the regulation of insurance to state law. The arguments that the defendants could not compel arbitration because the arbitration provision was unenforceable as a contract of adhesion, and that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause, were also denied.
United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2 February 2021, CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-102-JWD-SDJ
(Georgetown Home Owners Association, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Severally Subscribing to Policy Number AMR-60507, et al.)
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The Court denied the petition to confirm an award of the Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration, finding that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the respondent, which, as an instrumentality of the Republic of Tajikistan, was assumed to be entitled to the protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Skyroad failed to make showings to rebut that assumption. Accordingly, consistent with the Due Process Clause the Court could only exercise personal jurisdiction over the respondent if the respondent had sufficient minimum contacts with the United States. The record, noted the Court, revealed no such contacts.
United States District Court, District of Columbia, 26 January 2021, Case No. 20-cv-00763 (APM)
(UAB Skyroad Leasing v. OJSC Tajik Air)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
On remand from the Supreme Court (following that Court's 2020 decision in Outokumpu), the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying defendant's motions to compel arbitration and to grant a stay pending arbitration. The Court held that equitable estoppel precludes a party from claiming the benefits of a contract while simultaneously attempting to avoid the burdens that contract imposes. In this case, however, the plaintiffs' claims were not clearly intertwined with the partnership deed providing for arbitration. Accordingly, the district court properly exercised its discretion in rejecting defendant's argument that plaintiffs should be equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 20 January 2021, No. 18-35573
(Balkrishna Setty, Individually and as General Partner in Shrinivas Sugandhalaya Partnership with Nagraj Setty; Shrinivas Sugandhalaya (Bng) LLP v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
The District Court dismissed the petition to confirm two awards rendered in London, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the respondents.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 18 January 2021, 20-CV-2626 (VEC)
(George Moundreas & CO SA v. Jinhai Intelligent Manufacturing Co Ltd f/k/a Jinhai Heavy Industry Co Ltd, et al.)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
An award rendered in an arbitration conducted in Paris in accordance with the UNCITRAL Rules, in respect of a dispute falling under the Energy Charter Treaty, found in favour of Energoalliance, which was subsequently replaced first by Komstroy and then by Stileks as successors in interest. The district court stayed the US confirmation proceedings pending the annulment action initiated by Moldova in France, then lifted the stay when the application was eventually denied by the Cour de cassation, and confirmed the award. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court. It noted in respect of the sovereign immunity defense raised by Moldova that the arbitration exception in the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act requires that three jurisdictional facts be established: the existence of an arbitration agreement, an award and a treaty governing the award. Moldova argued that there was no arbitration agreement in respect of the specific dispute: while the ECT may establish that Moldova agreed to arbitrate certain disputes, it did not prove that Moldova agreed to arbitrate this particular dispute. As a consequence, the arbitrators exceeded their authority within the meaning of the New York Convention. The Court of Appeals did not go into the merits of this issue, as it found that by signing the ECT, which referred to arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules, Moldova agreed to assign arbitrability determinations to the arbitral tribunal. Thus, the confirmation court must accept the arbitral tribunal's determination that Energoalliance's claim fell within the ECT. The Court further held that the district court correctly lifted the stay, because it considered all the relevant factors and therefore did not abuse its discretion in this respect.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 15 January 2021, No. 19-7106 Consolidated with 19-7142
(LLC SPC Stileks v. The Republic of Moldova)
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
The District Court dealt with the petition to enforce and the cross-petition to vacate an ICDR award rendered in New York. The Court noted that the New York Convention applied because Cognac Ferrand was a foreign corporation, and that because the arbitration took place in the United States, the Convention and Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act allowed the Court to apply its domestic arbitration law – the FAA – to the motion to set aside or vacate that award. Applying the FAA's domestic provisions, the Court dismissed Ferrand's arguments that the sole arbitrator exceeded her authority under the parties' agreement or acted in manifest disregard of the law, and that the award was not "final and definite" because it failed adequately to dispose of Ferrand's request for fees and costs. Having dismissed the motion to vacate the award, the Court granted confirmation without further discussion.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 13 January 2021, 20 Civ. 5933 (PAE)
(Cognac Ferrand S.A.S. v. Mystique Brands LLC)
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The Court denied a motion to compel arbitration in an admiralty case in which Gumenyuk, a seaman, sought damages for injuries. The Court found that the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, while utilizing the word "Arbitration" in the label, and having a singular reference to "arbitrators" in one Article, did not state that a seafarer's claims were subject to arbitration. The Court concluded that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties.
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 21 December 2020, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-20-00285
(Sergiy Gumenyuk v. Marlow Navigation Company, Ltd, et al.)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Roche initiated an action against Guarino and another defendant, Iutum Services Corp., seeking confirmation of an award. rendered in accordance with the rules of the Arbitration Center of the Caracas Chamber. The Southern District of Florida on 10 April 2020 confirmed the award under the New York Convention. Guarino appeals the district court's confirmation of the award against him individually. Guarino asserts the district court's confirmation of the award should be reversed because (1) the agreement to arbitrate was not in writing, (2) he did not receive sufficient notice of the arbitration, and (3) recognition of the arbitral award is contrary to public policy of the United States. The Court of Appeals found that no reversible error had been shown, and affirmed the lower court's decision. In respect of the objection of public policy, the Court held that the public policy defense under the New York Convention is very narrow and applies only when confirmation would violate the forum state's most basic notions of morality and justice. The objection that Venezuelan law is offensive to notions of Florida public policy as it does not comply with Florida's corporate veil-piercing law failed: the contract was subject to Venezuelan law and should be construed according to Venezuelan law.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 15 December 2020, No. 20-11420 Non-Argument Calendar
(Gerardo Jose Guarino v. Productos Roche S.A.)
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
The Court granted the motion to compel arbitration. The Court first examined removal jurisdiction under the New York Convention, then determined that the arbitration clause in the insurance contract between the parties fell under the Convention's purview because it involved at least one non-US party. The Policy's service of suit endorsement did not supersede the arbitration provision. Because the Policy contained an enforceable arbitration agreement, the issue of arbitrability must be referred to the arbitrators.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 14 December 2020, CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2326 SECTION "B"(5)
(1010 Common, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
The Court granted confirmation of an SMA award rendered in New York, rejecting objections of lack of jurisdiction, excess of authority, and violation of public policy for alleged corruption.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 30 November 2020, as amended 10 December 2020, 1:19-cv-11654-ALC
(Commodities & Minerals Enterprise, Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco C.A.)
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Pagaduan appealed from a district court's order denying his motion seeking non-enforcement of a Philippine arbitral award compensating Pagaduan for injuries he suffered as a crewmember aboard one of Carnival's ships, in the amount of US$ 5,100 and attorney's fees, but declining to provide other relief. Pagaduan opposed enforcement on the ground that there had been a violation of due process within the meaning of Art. V(1)(b) of the New York Convention. The Court disagreed, noting that Pagaduan had submitted multiple briefs, medical records, and affidavits before the arbitrator, though he chose to focus his arguments almost entirely on whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the case. The argument that confirmation should be denied on grounds of public policy pursuant to Art. V(2)(b) of the Convention – because the lesser remedies available under Philippine law contravene United States policy to provide special solicitude to seamen under the US Jones Act – also failed. The Court held that even assuming that Pagaduan's recovery was lower under Philippine law than it might have been under the Jones Act, nothing about the award was so contrary to federal public policy as to violate the most basic notions of morality and justice of the United States.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 25 November 2020, 19-3400-cv
(Rodrigo R. Pagaduan v. Carnival Corporation, dba Carnival Cruise Lines)
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand. It reasoned that it only had jurisdiction under the New York Convention and Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, the Convention's implementing legislation, over proceedings in which a party sought to compel arbitration, enjoin or stay an arbitration, or enjoin a proceeding in aid of arbitration. In the present case, the plaintiffs' state court action sought a declaration that certain loan agreements between the parties were unenforceable sham loan agreements and an injunction barring defendants from enforcing these agreements. Such action did not fall under any of the federal jurisdiction categories.
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 25 November 2020, 20 CV 1068 (LDH) (CLP)
(WJ Holding Limited and Stubrick Limited v. Shireen Maritime Ltd et al.)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
In this Yukos case, the Russian Federation sought a stay of the proceedings for the confirmation of a Dutch award, pending the review by the Dutch Supreme Court of the judgment rendered by the court of appeal in the Dutch setting aside proceedings. The Court held that considerations of judicial economy, the balance of hardships, and international comity required that the stay be granted.
United States District Court, District of Columbia, 20 November 2020, Civil Action No. 14-1996 (BAH)
(Hulley Enterprises Ltd., et al. v. The Russian Federation)
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
The case concerns an arbitral award rendered in Egypt on the basis of an arbitration clause contained in a 1933 agreement (“the 1933 Concession”) between the Saudi Arabian government and Standard Oil Company of California (“SoCal”), under which the government granted SoCal, for a period of sixty years, the exclusive right to search for oil in Saudi Arabia. Petitioners argued, inter alia, that the arbitration provision in the 1933 Concession was incorporated into a separate agreement for the transfer of land rights executed in 1949 between the petitioners’ ancestors and Arabian American Oil Company (“Aramco”), a subsidiary of SoCal (“the 1949 Agreement”). Petitioners further argued that said Agreement concerned not a sale but a lease of land, so that petitioners would be entitled to “rental value” for use of that land by the oil companies. In 2015, the arbitral tribunal issued an award over USD 18 billion in petitioners’ favor.
The District Court rejected petitioners’ motion to confirm the award on three grounds.
First, the District Court examined whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between the petitioners and Saudi Aramco, Aramco’s successor (the latter having dissolved in 1990); enforcing an award in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement would be contrary to US public policy and render Article V(2) of the New York Convention applicable. The Court found that there was no such valid agreement because (i) the 1949 Agreement did not expressly incorporate the arbitration clause contained in the 1933 Concession so as to constitute a “clear, unequivocal, and unconditional agreement to arbitrate”; (ii) petitioners were never sued under the 1933 Concession so as to be in a position to rely on equitable estoppel; (iii) there is no language in the 1933 Concession which would allow the invocation of the third-party beneficiary doctrine; and (iv) the petitioners’ claims cannot be deemed derivative of the Saudi government’s right to sue for unpaid rent under the 1933 Concession, the petitioners having consistently argued that they, not the Saudi government, own the land in question. The Court refused to confirm the petitioners’ award under Article V(2) of the New York Convention.
Second, the District Court held that the question whether the 1949 Agreement memorialized a lease as opposed to a sale of land falls outside the scope of the arbitration clause invoked by the petitioners, thus rendering Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention applicable. The Court emphasized that the scope of the 1933 Concession was limited to the grant of rights for petroleum extraction on public and private lands; the arbitration clause contained in the 1933 Concession does not purport to cover a dispute concerning rent allegedly owed under a deed (i.e., the 1949 Agreement) transferring private rights and the title of land to another party.
Third, the District Court found that the arbitral proceedings in Egypt did not conform to the procedures outlined in the arbitration clause invoked by the petitioners, hence rendering the award unenforceable on the basis of Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention. In particular, the Court noted that the arbitration clause in the 1933 Concession explicitly provided for ad hoc arbitration in The Netherlands; instead, the petitioners unilaterally commenced an institutional arbitration in Egypt; the arbitrators and umpire were not properly selected; there were multiple resignations of appointed arbitrators, a rotating cast of arbitrators filling the positions vacated by others; and, most importantly, the tribunal first issued an opinion holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute, only for a differently constituted tribunal to reopen the arbitration and issue a second opinion holding not only that it had jurisdiction, but that the petitioners were entitled to USD 18 billion.
In a footnote, the Court also observed that the petitioners failed to provide the original prevailing English-language version of the arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof, only providing an English translation of the original Arabic-language version instead, which would warrant a denial of the petition under Article IV of the New York Convention. Notwithstanding this, the Court proceeded to address the merits of the petition as mentioned above, under the assumption that the petitioners’ English translation is accurate and sufficient to satisfy Article IV of the New York Convention.
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, 17 November 2020
(Waleed Bin Al-Qarqani et al. v. Arab American Oil Company et al.)
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Court compelled arbitration of Sisca's claims against HAL, finding that the four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were met: there was an agreement in writing within the meaning of the Convention, which provided for arbitration in the territory of a Convention signatory and arose out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which was considered commercial; and a party to the agreement was not an American citizen, or the commercial relationship had some reasonable relation with one or more foreign states. The only disputed requirement here was that the personal injury claims arose one day after Sisca's employment agreement expired by its own terms. The Court explained that an employment agreement's termination does not automatically mean that the arbitration agreement is inapplicable. It referred to its own precedents and the precedents of other courts determining that disputes under broadly worded arbitration clauses such as the one in the parties' agreement were subject to arbitration even though the plaintiffs, as Sisca did here, argued that the employment agreement had terminated and thus the arbitration clauses did not apply. The Court then found that no affirmative defenses were proved, and compelled arbitration.
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 10 November 2020, Case No. 20-cv-22911-BLOOM/Louis
(Antonio Sisca v. HAL Maritime, Ltd. et al.)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The main dispute between the parties in this confirmation proceeding was whether Citigroup had already complied with the Award based on its payment in part to Ozkaptan and in part to United Kingdom tax authorities. The Court granted confirmation of the AAA award, noting that confirmation of an award and compliance with its terms are distinct questions.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 6 November 2020, 20-CV-747 (JMF)
(Baris Ozkaptan v. Citigroup, Inc.)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Presented with a motion to compel arbitration, the Court had previously found that the arbitration agreement at issue fell within the scope of the New York Convention and that it related to the dispute. In this decision, the Court denied Elko's motion for reconsideration, which based on newly discovered evidence that the person who signed the contract containing the arbitration clause on behalf of one of the defendants did not have the authority to do so. Thus, according to Elko, this non-signatory could not rely on the arbitration clause. The Court held that it need not address the factual substance of Elko's argument because the United States Supreme Court recently overturned the Eleventh Circuit precedent relied on by Elko, Outokumpu, holding that the New York Convention does not categorically prohibit non-signatories from enforcing arbitration agreements under domestic doctrines, including equitable estoppel.
United States District Court, District of Nevada, 2 November 2020, Case No. 3:19-cv-00610-LRH-WGC
(Elko Broadband Ltd. v. Dhabi Holdings PJSC, et al.)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
The Court compelled arbitration of the dispute between the parties, finding that the arbitration provision contained in their Shareholders Agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the HKIAC by "clear and unmistakable evidence".
United States District Court, Northern District of California, 28 October 2020, Case No. 20-cv-05791-VC
(Michael Pak v. Eocell, Inc. et al.)
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
The district court had denied the non-signatory defendant's motion to compel arbitration, relying entirely on the 2018 holding of the Eleventh Circuit in Outokumpu that the New York Convention requires that the parties actually sign the agreement containing the arbitration clause, and that the non-signatory subcontractor could not rely on domestic equitable estoppel doctrines to enforce the arbitration agreement because equitable estoppel doctrines conflicts with the New York Convention's signatory requirement. Subsequent to the district court's decision, however, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Eleventh Circuit, holding that nothing in the New York Convention conflicts with the application of relevant equitable doctrines. Consistent with that Supreme Court ruling, the Eleventh Circuit granted the appeal from the decision of the district court in this case in a short per curiam decision, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 28 October 2020, No. 19-12100
(Lynn McCullough, et al. v. AIG Insurance Hong Kong Limited)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
The plaintiff initiated state court proceedings against the defendant, claiming damages in relation of the death of his son, a seaman who had worked aboard one of the defendant's vessels. The plaintiff argued that after the passengers were disembarked in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, crewmembers were permitted to move about the vessel without limitations or restrictions for two weeks. Crewmembers allegedly were "encouraged to attend parties, shows, events and activities that took place aboard the ship which required crewmembers to be in close proximity, crowded spaces and stand in long lines". The plaintiff's son contracted the virus and died. The defendant moved to compel arbitration of the claims under the New York Convention, pursuant to the arbitration clause in the seaman's contract of employment. The Court granted the motion, finding that all four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the Convention were satisfied -- there was an agreement in writing within the meaning of the Convention, which provided for arbitration in the territory of a Convention signatory and arose out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which was considered commercial; and a party to the agreement was not an American citizen, or the commercial relationship had some reasonable relation with one or more foreign states – and that none of the Convention's affirmative defenses applied.
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 23 October 2020, Case No. 20-cv-23715-BLOOM/Louis
(Fnu Isanto, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Fnu Pujiyoko, deceased v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The Court granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Applying Montana law principles of contract interpretation, the Court found that the policy between the parties contained a valid arbitration clause and that the service-of-suit provision also contained in the policy worked in concert, not in conflict-with the arbitration provision. Further, the four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention – that there is an agreement in writing within the meaning of the Convention; the agreement provides for arbitration in the territory of a Convention signatory; the agreement arises out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which is considered commercial; and a party to the agreement is not an American citizen, or the commercial relationship has some reasonable relation with one or more foreign states – were met.
United States District Court, District of Montana, Missoula Division, 22 October 2020, CV 19-196-M-DLC
(Montana Association of Counties Property and Casualty Trust v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The Court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, finding that the four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were met: the written contracts between the parties contained an arbitration clause; Norway, the country indicated as the seat of arbitration, was a Convention signatory; the contracts arose from a commercial relationship between the parties, in which the plaintiff engaged the defendants to charter a small cruise ship for travel to international destinations; and the parties' relationship envisaged performance or enforcement abroad. The affirmative defences raised by the plaintiff were unsuccessful. The plaintiff claimed that the contracts between the parties were NULL and void because he had failed to comply with certain conditions precedent: timely signing the Agreements; including a deposit with the Agreements; providing full payment upon signing the Agreements; providing a letter of credit; and sending an original copy of the Agreements. The Court held that these defenses did not constitute defenses recognized by the New York Convention and the Eleventh Circuit, such as that the contracts were signed under fraud, duress, or mistake, or that a waiver occurred. Also, the plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the arbitration clause itself, but rather the validity of the contracts; such argument, held the Court, were for the arbitrators to decide.
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 22 October 2020, CASE NO. 1:19-cv-24416-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES
(Ramesh Cheruvoth v. Seadream Yacht Club, Inc. et al.)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The Court granted the petitioner's motion to remand the action to state court, finding that the four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were not met. Compelling arbitration under the Convention requires that there is an agreement in writing within the meaning of the Convention, which provides for arbitration in the territory of a Convention signatory and arises out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which is considered commercial; and a party to the agreement is not an American citizen, or the commercial relationship has some reasonable relation with one or more foreign states. Here, in particular, the arbitration relationship was between United States' citizens and Havens failed to demonstrate that the dispute involved property or performance abroad. The fact that the licenses which formed part of the dispute could reach beyond the borders of the United States did not make them property located abroad, nor did potential future service of the subject licenses create a reasonable relation with one or more foreign states.
United States District Court, Northern District of California, 9 October 2020, Case No. 20-cv-05236-JST
(Arnold Leong v. Warren Havens)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The Court granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Maglana and the other plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had held for months, and continued to hold, "thousands of souls captive aboard its fleet" without wages or the ability to return home, without a justifiable reason – in fact, because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court found that it should compel arbitration as the four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were met: there was an agreement in writing within the meaning of the Convention, which provided for arbitration in the territory of a Convention signatory and arose out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which was considered commercial; and a party to the agreement was not an American citizen, or the commercial relationship had some reasonable relation with one or more foreign states. The Court also found that the arbitration provisions were not rendered invalid because of the defendant's alleged contractual nonperformance (unclean hands).
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 7 October 2020, CASE NO.: 1:20-22133-CIV-MARTINEZ
(Ryan Maunes Maglana et al. v. Celebrity Cruises Inc.)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Woodward filed claims against the Underwriters in state court; the Underwriters removed the case to federal court under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act, and filed a motion to compel Woodward to arbitrate their claims in accordance with the arbitration clause in an insurance policy. Woodward moved to remand. The Court denied the remand motion, finding that the Woodward state-court claims were related to their claims governed by the arbitration clause. The Court also found that the arbitration clause was not NULL and void as a violation of public policy because it would force the parties to apply New York law, and Woodward would, therefore, not be able to claim bad-faith damages. The Court explained that Woodward failed to cite any support for its position that the arbitration clause violated public policy, and noted, moreover, the strong policy in both the United States and the Fifth Circuit in favor of enforcing arbitration clauses. Nor did the Insurers waive their right to arbitrate by issuing policy endorsements and amendments referring to the court of competent jurisdiction as determined by the Service of Suit Clause. These references did not amount to a "clear and unequivocal" waiver of arbitration. Having thus found that it had original jurisdiction under the FAA, the Court then compelled arbitration, finding that the four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were met: there was an agreement in writing within the meaning of the Convention, which provided for arbitration in the territory of a Convention signatory and arose out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which was considered commercial; and a party to the agreement was not an American citizen, or the commercial relationship had some reasonable relation with one or more foreign states.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 29 September 2020, CIVIL ACTION NO: 19-14017 SECTION: T(3)
(Woodward Design + Build, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al.)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The Court granted confirmation of an SMA award rendered in New York, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, and that the defendant had been duly notified of the arbitration.
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 23 September 2020, Case No. 19-cv-25217-GAYLES
(Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A.)
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
On the same day on which it rendered its decision on the remand of the case between Dahiya and the Vessel Interests, the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Dahiya's motion to dismiss the application of the Vessel Interests to confirm the award rendered in India between the parties. The award was in favor of Dahiya, to whom it had granted a sizeable compensation. Dahiya sought, however, to stop confirmation in what the Court described as "an increasingly quixotic bid to win greater damages in the United States". The Court held that summary judgment was appropriate here. In particular, the award was subject to confirmation pursuant to the New York Convention, under which the Court was a court of secondary jurisdiction which could only deny confirmation on the seven exclusive Convention grounds, none of which were present here. Dahiya's claim that the extension of the award to nonparties to the employment Deed and the arbitration agreement therein precluded summary judgment failed: first, because of an earlier state court decision which had held that Dahiya was required to arbitrate his claims against all of the Vessel Interests; and, second, because the doctrine of equitable estoppel provided that an entity need not be a formal signatory to enforce an agreement to arbitrate in certain circumstances. Further, the Court's confirmation of the award was binding on all parties to this litigation; and this binding nature precluded Dahiya's efforts to seek some other result. The Court therefore granted a permanent injunction to bar Dahiya from any further attempts to relitigate the award or the underlying controversy. The second decision granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 16 September 2020 and 14 October 2020, CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1525 SECTION "F"
(Neptune Shipmanagement Services (Pte.), Ltd. et al. v. Vinod Kumar Dahiya)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Dahiya was injured while working onboard a vessel owned by Talmidge, pursuant to an employment contract, the Deed, with Neptune Shipmanagement Services (PTE), Ltd. He then sued Talmidge, Neptune, and other Vessel Interests in state court. The Vessel Interests removed the lawsuit to the Eastern District of Louisiana under the New York Convention, and moved to compel Dahiya to arbitrate pursuant to the terms of the Deed. Dahiya moved to remand, and his motion was granted. The Fifth Circuit held that an order remanding a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was unreviewable, "no matter how erroneous". The District Court subsequently observed that its remand ruling had been erroneous. The present decision concerned the Vessel Interest's renewed removal of the case to federal court, and Dahiya's argument that, while the Court did have subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention, the removal was procedurally improper because it was both untimely and an impermissible "re-removal". The Court held instead that removal was timely and that re-removal was permissible. On the same day, the Court rendered a decision in a related case, Neptune v. Dahiya.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 16 September 2020, CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1527 SECTION "F"
(Vinod Kumar Dahiya v. Talmidge International Ltd., et al.)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
In its first decision, the Court granted confirmation of an ICC award rendered in Paris, denying the argument of the defendant that there had been a violation of due process because the sole arbitrator based the award, in part, on an interpretation of the contract that neither party had argued or relied on. The Court found instead that a review of the award showed otherwise. It also denied the defendant's motion to stay the enforcement proceedings. By its second decision, the Court granted Tetronics' motion for the entry of a default judgment confirming the award.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, 14 September 2020 and 28 September 2020, CASE NO. 4:20CV00530 SWW
(Tetronics International Limited v. Blueoak Arkansas LLC)
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Major League Baseball Properties sought confirmation of an AAA award under the New York Convention. The respondent did not dispute that the petitioner had made a threshold showing of an award in its favor and had properly moved to have the award confirmed in federal court. Rather, it opposed confirmation on the grounds that there were "critical disputed issues of fact" with respect to the selection of the sole arbitrator, and the arbitrator's process for determining attorneys' fees. This, it claimed, made summary judgment improper. The Court disagreed. It reasoned that the selection process did not raise a question of fact, because whether the arbitration tribunal was properly constituted was not a disputed fact here but rather a contested legal conclusion drawn from facts that were not disputed. The Court concluded that the appointment of the arbitrator had taken place according to the applicable AAA rules. Further, the defendant did not point to a single disputed fact pertaining to the award of attorneys' fees, simply describing that decision as "erroneous" and "improper". This argument was unsuccessful, because the Court held that the determination of attorney fees in the present case did not constitute manifest disregard of the law.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 14 September 2020, 1:19-cv-8669-MKV
(Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Corporacion de Television y Microonda Rafa, S.A.)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The Court accepted the recommentation of the Magistrate Judge, issued on 30 July 2020, on the same grounds.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 3 September 2020, 18-CV-8408 (VEC) (BCM)
(SSI (Beijing) Company Ltd. v. Prosper Business Development Corporation)
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The Court referred the case to arbitration in Hong Kong pursuant to the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement. It held that the arbitration was governed by the New York Convention because all the conditions therefor were met: there was an agreement in writing within the meaning of the Convention; the agreement provided for arbitration in the territory of a Convention signatory – here, Hong Kong; the agreement arose out of a commercial relationship; and at least one of the parties to the agreement is not an American citizen. Since the contract between the parties incorporated the rules of the HKIAC, all arbitrability questions were delegated to the arbitrator.
United States District Court, Northern District of California, 31 August 2020
(Flextronics International USA, Inc. v. Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
The District Court confirmed an award of the Brazilian Chamber of Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (CIESP/FIESP). The Court gave an overview of the confirmation process under the New York Convention, noting that Gradual had filed no opposition to the petition to enforce, and accordingly had not offered any ground for refusal. The Court independently reviewed the award and was satisfied that the reasons given by the arbitrators were sufficiently explained. It noted that to confirm an award, only "a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached" was necessary, and that it was only when the arbitrators strayed from interpretation and application of the agreement and effectively dispensed their own brand of justice that their decision may be unenforceable. On the facts of the case, the Court held that this was clearly not the case here.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 28 August 2020, 17 Civ. 3145 (PGG)
(TBC Consultoria em Investimentos Financeiros Ltda. v. Gradual Corretora de Cambio, Titulos e Valores Mobiliarios S.A.)
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the lack of reasons in the award on its recognition and enforcement.
The plaintiffs moved the Court, pursuant to the New York Convention, the Panama Convention, and the Federal Arbitration Act, to enjoin the defendants by a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief in Aid of International Arbitration from proceeding with the closing of a transaction, in order to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings that were soon to commence in Colombia. The Court denied the application, finding that the four factors established by the Eleventh Circuit were not met. A movant should prove "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the public interest". However, the plaintiffs in the present case did not set forth specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint that clearly showed that it will suffer immediate and irreparable harm before the defendants could be heard in opposition.
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 25 August 2020, Case No. 20-cv-23505-BLOOM/Louis
(Peter David Ullrich, et al. v. Clarisse Ullrich, et al.)
Related court proceedings: The court discusses measures in aid of arbitration (e.g., anti-suit injunction). This topic also includes the issue of the relationship between the Convention and the recognition of a foreign judgment on the validity of the arbitration agreement.
In its first decision, the District Court denied the motion of Ukraine to file a supplemental briefing in support of its attempt to introduce a third ground for opposing confirmation of a French award rendered in favor of Tatneft, holding that Ukraine did not validly explain why it had failed to raise this defense when replying to the application to confirm the award. Further, this third ground, which was based on Art. V(1)(c) of the Convention, could not be deemed to be related to the Art. V(1)(d) ground that Ukraine had raised, as these defenses were predicated on different subsections of Art. V. By the second decision, the Court granted confirmation of the award, finding that the fact that the president of the arbitral tribunal had failed to disclose that he had been appointed by the law firm for the plaintiff as arbitrator in an unrelated arbitration before the award was rendered, in violation of the disclosure provisions in the UNCITRAL Rules, under which the arbitration had been conducted, did not constitute a ground for refusal of confirmation under Art. V(1)(d).
United States District Court, District of Columbia,
13 May 2020 and 24 August 2020
(PAO Tatneft v. Ukraine)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the district court that a Bolivian award should be confirmed. The courts found, inter alia, that the ruling of the arbitral tribunal had not been set aside by a competent Bolivian authority, and that the tribunal's ruling on damages was sufficiently "binding" to allow confirmation.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 17 August 2020, No. 19-1151
(Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles, S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A.B. de C.V.)
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
The plaintiff passengers purchased a travel insurance plan from Norwegian Cruise Lines as part of a cruise package. They later filed a putative class action suit raising claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment, alleging that Norwegian failed to disclose profits it would earn in connection with the sale of the travel insurance. The district court had granted Norwegian’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the class allegations. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that the passengers’ claims, even their consumer fraud claims, fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in the Guest Contract between the parties.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 10 August 2020, No. 19-12463 Non-Argument Calendar
(Martha Phillips, et al. v. NCL Corporation Ltd., a foreign corporation doing business as Norwegian Cruise Lines)
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The Court granted confirmation of a foreign award, finding that none of the grounds for refusal under the New York Convention had been raised or appeared to exist.
United States District Court, Northern District of California, 4 August 2020, Case No. 20-cv-02359-MMC
(MBA Community Loans Plc v. Mark Castellani)
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
In the first decision, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion to vacate a partial and a final award rendered in the United States be denied. The parties agreed that the awards fell under the 1958 New York Convention. Referring to case law on this issue, the Judge explained that the objection of excess of authority raised under Sect. 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act was inapplicable here, because these international awards were subject to vacatur only if the plaintiff could successfully assert one of the seven defenses enumerated in Art. V of the New York Convention – which the plaintiff failed to do. In the second decision, the District Court adopted the recommendation.
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 16 April 2020 and 3 August 2020, Case No. 19-20294-CV-SCOLA/MCALILEY
(Corporacion AIC, S.A. v. Hidroelectrica Santa Rita, S.A.)
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation in favor of granting Prosper Business's crossmotion to refer the dispute to arbitration under the New York Convention, and denied SSI's motion for a declaration that the parties' arbitration clause was invalid under Chinese law and for an order enjoining any and all further proceedings in the arbitration. SSI claimed that the arbitration clause was invalid because it failed to specify an arbitration institution. The Court held that the arbitration agreement was not "NULL and void" within the meaning of the Convention as a result, because the failure to specify an arbitral institution was not an internationally recognized defense such as duress, mistake, fraud, or waiver that could be applied neutrally on an international scale. The recommendation was adopted by the District Court on 3 September 2020.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 30 July 2020, 18-CV-8408 (VEC) (BCM)
(SSI (Beijing) Company Ltd. v. Prosper Business Development Corporation)
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.
The Court denied the motion to vacate a nondomestic award rendered in New York and granted the motion to confirm it, dismissing the claims that the defendant had been denied due process in the arbitration; that confirmation would lead the claimant to violate a TRO entered by a state court; that the dispute had not been arbitrable; and that the arbitrators acted in manifest disregard of the law.
● United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 30 July 2020, 20-cv-2284 (LJL)
(PB Life and Annuity Co. Ltd. v. Universal Life Insurance Company)
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Court confirmed a nondomestic award rendered in the United States, finding – in the absence of the defendant – that none of the seven exclusive defenses to confirmation of the award under the New York Convention or the four reasons to vacate an award under the Federal Arbitration Act applied. Moreover, there was no arguable basis for finding that the decision of the arbitrators was in manifest disregard of the law.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 26 July 2020, 20-cv-936 (JGK)
(Phoenix Bulk Carriers (BVI) Ltd. v. Triorient LLC)
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The Court stayed the proceedings to enforce two SCC awards, pending annulment proceedings in Sweden, reasoning that a temporary stay was in the interest of judicial economy and international comity, especially given the significant legal issues that underlie the parties’ dispute, which arose from, and related to, European Union law.
United States District Court, District of Columbia, 23 July 2020, No. 19-cv-3443 (KBJ)
(Cef Energia, B.V., et al. v. Italian Republic)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The defendants did not oppose confirmation of the award, but disagreed as to the impact of the award on the plaintiff’s claims. The Magistrate Judge explained that in order to confirm a foreign award in a court of the United States, the parties had to follow the proper procedure pursuant to the New York Convention. In the present case, the plaintiff had complied with its obligations by submitting an authentic copy of the award (translated if necessary) and the original agreement to arbitrate. The defendants, as the party resisting confirmation, had the burden of demonstrating one of the grounds for refusal listed in the Convention, but had not invoked any of those grounds. Hence, the Judge recommended that confirmation be granted. As to the remaining question of the impact of the award on the plaintiff’s claims, the Judge recommended to find that because the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, it was within the power of the arbitral tribunal to decide that the plaintiff’s enforcement claims were not proper under English law and could not be arbitrated.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, 17 July 2020, NO.1:18-CV-00178-MAC
(Psara Energy, Ltd. v. Space Shipping, Ltd. et al.)
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court. The district court had confirmed an AAA award, dismissing the objection of public policy based on the argument that enforcement would violate US public policy because the award required Petrobras to pay damages based on a contract illegally procured through bribery. The Court of Appeals first noted that the public policy defense under the Panama Convention was substantively identical to the one set forth in the New York Convention; it then concluded that the district court had not erred in deferring to the arbitrators’ finding that Petrobras had ratified the allegedly illegal agreement, because under the New York Convention, the rulings of the arbitral tribunal interpreting the parties’ contract were entitled to deference.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 16 July 2020, No. 19-20435
(Vantage Deepwater Company et al. v. PETROBRAS America, Incorporated et al.)
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Court confirmed an AAA award rendered in the United States, finding that the arbitrators did not manifestly disregard Delaware law on the rehash and bootstrapping doctrines in respect of fraud and fraudulent inducement claims. Also, the arbitrators did not exceed their powers, because the fraudulent inducement and breach-of-contract claims both arose from the acquisition that was the subject of the share purchase agreement containing an arbitration agreement.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 15 July 2020, 20-cv-3029 (LJL)
(Precision Castparts Corp., et al. v. Schultz Holding GmbH & Co. KG, et al.)
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Court granted the motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention, finding that the Convention superseded Arkansas law, which barred the enforcement of binding arbitration clauses in insurance contracts. The Court explained that the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which provided that “no Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance”, did not apply to the Convention.
United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, 1 July 2020, CASE NO. 5:20-CV-5049
(J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. Steadfast Insurance Company et al.)
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
In a short decision, the Court set out the conditions for referring a dispute to arbitration under the New York Convention and found that they were all met in the present case.
United States District Court, Southern District of California, 1 July 2020, Case No.: 3:19-CV-1979 W (AHG)
(Mullen Technologies, Inc. v. Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd.)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The Court confirmed an AAA award in its first decision, holding that, “based on the record provided, together with the appropriate narrow level of review”, there was no disputed material issue of fact and that the award should be confirmed. The Court denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, because the plaintiff failed to provide records supporting these fees, and its request for pre-judgment interest, because it failed to provide any support or authority for seeking pre-judgment interest; nor did it indicate the rate of pre-judgment interest it sought. In the second decision, the Court granted the plaintiff’s renewed motions for prejudgment interest and for attorney's fees and costs.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 27 May 2020 and 23 June 2020, 19 Civ. 9347 (ER)
(Seaport Global Holdings LLC v. Petaquilla Minerals Ltd)
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The Court of Appeals held that it had jurisdiction over the appeal against the order by which, in the context of an enforcement petition, the district court had directed Nigeria to present all its defenses – both jurisdictional (including the defense of immunity) and merits – in a single response. The Court explained that the order was appealable under the collateral-order doctrine, and rejected the contention that the Court nonetheless lacked jurisdiction because the state’s underlying assertion of immunity was not colorable as both the arbitration exception and the waiver exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) applied. The Court found instead that the state had at least a colorable argument that an award set aside by a court with supervisory jurisdiction could not be a basis for the arbitration exception, pursuant to Art. V(1)(e) of the 1958 New York Convention.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
Circuit, 19 June 2020
(Federal Republic of Nigeria et al. v. Process and Industrial Developments
Limited)
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
The Court confirmed an award of the Society of Maritime Arbitrators, Inc., finding that no grounds for refusal were raised or appeared to exist under the New York Convention.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 16 June 2020, 19 Civ. 43 (AT)
(Ocean World Lines, Inc. v. TRANSOCEAN SHIPPING TRANSPORTAGENTUR GesmbH)
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court (US no. 965), which had granted a motion to compel arbitration of claims against the first defendant/appellant and the motion of the appellees to confirm CIETAC awards. As to the motion to compel arbitration, the Court held that deference was owed to the factual finding of the lower court that the first defendant’s contention that he had not agreed to arbitration was disproved by the evidence; in any case, the Court added, the first defendant should have protected himself when signing the agreements containing the arbitration clauses, and could not invoke the fact that had not retained Chinese counsel or an impartial interpreter. As to the motion to confirm the awards, the first defendant could not argue that confirmation should be denied because the appellees commenced arbitration in China while their motion to compel arbitration was pending in the US courts. The Court explained that the FAA did not require that a party must move in court to compel arbitration before initiating arbitration, or that a court order on a motion to compel arbitration was a prerequisite for arbitration. The defense that the first defendant had been unable to present his case in the arbitration because of his poor health and limited financial resources was disproved by the record. The argument that confirmation would be against public policy was not explained, and in any case could not be heard because it was raised for the first time on appeal.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit,
8 June 2020
(Denver Global Products, Inc. v. Roger Leon et al.)
The court discusses what more recent means of communication are also covered by the “exchange of letters or telegrams” alternative: telefax, email, e-commerce, etc.
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Nueces County filed an action in state court to recover for property damage caused by Hurricane Harvey. Defendants removed the action to federal court based on the arbitration clause in the policy of insurance, which fell under the New York Convention. The Court held that removal was proper and denied the motion to remand.
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, 2 June 2020, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-065
(Nueces County, Texas v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, et al.)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision of the Eleventh Circuit (US no. 961), which had in turn reversed the decision of a district court (US no. 908) compelling arbitration of a dispute between the parties. The Court of Appeals had found that the defendant (the present petitioner) could not compel arbitration under the 1958 New York Convention as it had not signed the arbitration agreement; it could also not rely on the theory of equitable estoppel or third-party beneficiary, because these theories were available under Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which regulated domestic arbitration and only applied to New York Convention cases when not in conflict with Chapter 2 of the Act codifying the Convention. In this case, the Court of Appeals had found that the two Chapters were in conflict, since Chapter 1 did not expressly restrict arbitration to the specific parties to an agreement, while Chapter 2 and the Convention imposed precisely such a restriction. The Supreme Court reached the contrary conclusion that the New York Convention did not conflict with the equitable estoppel doctrines permitting the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories. The Supreme Court held the following: (1) Chapter 1 of the FAA did not alter the traditional principles of state contract law regarding the scope of agreements, including the question of who was bound by them; these principles included doctrines, like equitable estoppel, authorizing contract enforcement by a nonsignatory. (2) Treaty interpretation established that the state-law equitable estoppel doctrines permitted under Chapter 1 did not conflict with the Convention and were therefore applicable: (i) the text of the New York Convention was silent on the issue of enforcement by a nonsignatory; hence, nothing in the Convention could be read to conflict with the application of domestic equitable estoppel doctrines; and (ii) this interpretation was confirmed by the Convention’s negotiation and drafting history as well as the post-ratification understanding of the signatory nations, as evidenced by the decisions of the courts of other Convention signatories. (3) The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals could address on remand whether the present petitioner could enforce the arbitration clauses under equitable estoppel principles.
Supreme Court of the United States, 1 June 2020
GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp., fka Converteam SAS v.
Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC et al.
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 2006.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
The Court explained that Art. V(1)(e) of the New York Convention incorporated the domestic Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by providing that awards could be set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country of rendition. Hence, in the case at issue the Court could examine whether vacatur of a Convention award rendered in the United States was warranted under the domestic FAA because of the alleged excess of authority of the sole arbitrator. On the facts of the case, it concluded it was not.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 29 May 2020, CIIVIL ACTION NO. 18-1973
(CPR Management, S.A. v. Devon Park Bioventures, L.P. et al.)
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
The Court examined motions to compel arbitration in an insurance coverage dispute. It granted the motion filed by the insurer defendants (some of which were foreign entities), which were signatories to the insurance policy containing an agreement for arbitration in New York, and denied the motion filed by the broker defendants, who were not. The Court then stayed all claims until the arbitral proceedings concluded in their entirety. In respect of the claims filed against the insurer defendants, the Court dismissed the contention that the arbitration agreement was NULL and void on public policy grounds because it specified that the arbitral tribunal had to be composed of persons employed in senior positions in insurance underwriting or claims, seated in New York and applying New York law, with strict limitations set as to the available categories of damages and recoverable costs. The plaintiff argued instead that it was entitled to trial before a jury in Texas applying Texas law, with the ability to seek punitive, multiple, and consequential damages. The Court explained that the NULL and void clause was limited to standard breach-of-contract defenses capable of being applied neutrally on an international scale—such as fraud, mistake, duress, waiver, and the like. Further, public policy arguments could be raised as grounds for refusal at the enforcement stage.
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 29 May 2020, CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-cv-00974
(5556 Gasmer Mgmt. LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London)
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
The Court granted confirmation of an award rendered in the United States, finding that the New York Convention applied because the award was made in the United States but did not solely involve United States citizens. Further, the plaintiff duly supplied a copy of the sales contract between the parties that contained the agreement to arbitrate and a copy of the final award. The Court also found that it had personal jurisdiction over the Lithuanian defendant.
United States District Court, District of Kansas, 22 May 2020, Case No. 20-mc-0105-EFM-GEB
(Dreymoor Fertilizers Overseas Pte. Ltd. v. Avagro, LLC, and UAB Avagro)
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The Court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, finding that the defendants, which were not signatories to the contract containing the arbitration clause, could rely on that clause because the arbitration clause itself was readily susceptible of an interpretation that covered both the parties and the disputes at issue. Further, the defendants could rely on the arbitration clause under either a direct-benefits estoppel or an intertwined-claim estoppel theory.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, 21 May 2020, Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-00648-ALM
(Bayco Products Inc. v. ProTorch Company Inc. et al.)
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
The Court granted the defendant’s motion to compel AAA arbitration based on the arbitration clause in a reinsurance agreement, finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed and must be read to provide that the issue of arbitrability – whether the parties were bound by the arbitration clause, and whether the dispute fell within the scope of the clause – was to be decided by the arbitrator.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 12 May 2020, 20-cv-2284 (LJL)
(PB Life and Annuity Co. Ltd. v. Universal Life Insurance Company)
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The Court granted a motion for summary judgment to enforce a SIAC award, finding that the defenses to confirmation failed. First, the respondent failed to advise the Court on any provision of Singapore law which might render the arbitration agreement invalid, or to prove that the award was procured by fraud (taking into account that the public policy defense was to be construed narrowly). Second, although the respondent was not barred by collateral estoppel from resisting confirmation on the ground that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate during the arbitration, this contention failed on the facts of the case.
United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, 4 May 2020, DOCKET NO. 3:18-cv-00172-FDW-DSC
(Rachan Damidi Reddy v. Rashid A. Buttar)
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The case concerned the petition to confirm a Kyrgyz award. In a first decision (17 October 2019), the District Court denied the Kyrgyz Republic's forum non conveniens argument, and ordered supplemental briefing on whether the award should also be confirmed against the Kyrgyz Republic, rather than only against the Ministry. Following the supplemental briefing, the Court held that, in application of the case law in the Circuit, the Ministry was not entitled to a presumption that it was separate from the Republic and that even if it were, that presumption would be overcome because the Ministry was the Republic's agent. The Court then confirmed the award against the Republic, because the respondents had presented no reasons why the award should not be confirmed.
United States District Court, District of Columbia, 22 April 2020, Civil Action No.: 18-2228 (RC)
(Entes Industrial Plants, Construction and Erection Contracting Co. Inc. v. The Kyrgyz Republic and The Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Kyrgyz Republic)
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
Confirmation of an award of the Arbitration Center of the Caracas Chamber was granted. Although the Panama Convention applied in the present case, the Court explained that the Panama Convention and the New York Convention were largely identical; thus, the case law interpreting provisions of the New York Convention were largely applicable to the Panama Convention and vice versa. One of the defendants relied on provisions of the New York Convention, Art. V(1)(a), (1)(b), to argue – unsuccessfully – that he was not a party to the arbitration agreement because, although he signed the agreement containing the arbitration clause on behalf of the corporate defendant Iutum, he did not sign it in his individual capacity; and because he was not given proper notice of the arbitration proceedings as notice by publication in a Venezuelan newspaper was not proper notice of the arbitration proceedings.
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 10 April 2020, Civil Action No. 20-20059-Civ-Scola
(Productos Roche S.A. v. Iutum Services Corp. et al.)
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
The Court declined to stay the proceeding for the confirmation of a London award pending an annulment action in England. Nigeria moved for a stay asserting immunity under the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act. The Court held that Nigeria waived its immunity under the FSIA by signing the New York Convention, and by agreeing to arbitrate in the territory of another Convention signatory.
United States District Court, District of Columbia, 4 December 2020, Case No. 18-cv-594 (CRC)
(Process and Industrial Developments Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, et al.)
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
The Court of Appeals explained that as a court of secondary jurisdiction, it had a limited scope of review and could only deny enforcement on the grounds listed in Art. V of the 1958 New York Convention, which were to be construed narrowly and did not include a review of the merits. On the facts of the case, it found that there was a valid agreement for SCC arbitration in an amendment to the original contract (which had contained a different arbitration clause) because the person who signed the amendment had the necessary capacity; and that there had been no violation of due process because the SCC arbitration had complied with the basic safeguards which constituted due process in the United States. Further, confirmation of the award would not violate the public policy interest in international comity by disrespecting the decision of the Ukrainian courts, which had held that the contractual amendment was invalid; there would be no such violation because the Court, as a court of secondary jurisdiction under the New York Convention, would not apply US law in another country or resolve whether the award would be enforced in Ukraine or satisfied with assets located in Ukraine. Comity concerns were also counterbalanced by the “emphatic” US policy favoring international arbitration.
US No. 2020-9, OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, No. 19-20011, 6 April 2020
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The District Court denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss or stay arbitration in St. Kitts and Nevis until the Court had made a decision about whether an enforceable arbitration agreement existed. The Court noted that the plaintiff failed to address whether the Court had jurisdiction to dismiss or stay arbitration proceedings in the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis; it also pointed out that its independent research had shown that such jurisdiction may not exist because St. Kitts and Nevis was not a party to the New York Convention.
United States District Court, District of Colorado, 6 April 2020, Civil Action No. 19-cv-01640-CMA-STV
(Two Rivers Water & Farming Company v. America 2030 Capital Limited et al.)
The court discusses whether a declaratory judgment on the validity of the arbitration agreement is available under the Convention.
The Court of Appeals affirmed on the same grounds the decision of the District Court (US 995), which had rejected the petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitral award rendered in the United Kingdom, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction under the 1958 New York Convention, pursuant to which only the courts of the country where or under whose law the award was rendered had primary jurisdiction to vacate the award. As a court of secondary jurisdiction, the US court could only grant or refuse recognition and enforcement under the Convention.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit,
3 April 2020
(Antoine Savine v. Interactive Brokers, LLC)
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
The Court granted Spain’s motion to transfer the action to confirm an SCC award rendered pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and referred Spain’s motion to stay the action pending the resolution of a set-aside proceeding in Sweden to the transferee court.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 30 March 2020, 19 Civ. 3171 (ER)
(Foresight Luxembourg Solar 1 S.A.R.L. et al. v. Kingdom of Spain)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The personal injury claims of a US seaman were referred to arbitration in London under the arbitration clause in the insurance policy between the US employer and a UK insurer. The plaintiff had added the insurer as a direct defendant to the action and was therefore bound by the arbitration clause in the insurance contract on which it was otherwise relying.
United States District Court, Eastern District of
Louisiana, 21 November 2019
(Ronald Havard v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators, LLC)
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
The case concerned the petition to confirm a Kyrgyz award. The District Court dealt with two procedural arguments made by the Kyrgyz Republic, namely, that the petition to confirm the award should be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens and, alternatively, it should be confirmed only against the Ministry and not against the Republic, because the Republic had not been a party to the arbitration proceedings. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, confirmed the confirmation petition against the Ministry, and ordered supplemental briefing on the application of the case law in the Circuit to the question of whether the award should also be confirmed against the Kyrgyz Republic. Following the supplemental briefing, the Court on 22 April 2020 confirmed the award (see document).
● United States District Court, District of Columbia, 17 October 2019, Civil Action No.: 18-2228 (RC)
(Entes Industrial Plants, Construction and Erection Contracting Co. Inc. v. The Kyrgyz Republic and The Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Kyrgyz Republic)
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit,
17 October 2019
Sladjana Cvoro v. Carnival Corporation, d.b.a. Carnival Cruise Lines
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit,
17 October 2019
Sladjana Cvoro v. Carnival Corporation, d.b.a. Carnival Cruise Lines
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US No. 993. LLC Komstroy, as successor in interest to LLC Energoalliance (Ukraine) v. Republic of Moldova, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 14-cv-01921 (CRC), 13 November 2018 and 23 August 2019
United States District Court, District of Columbia,
13 November 2018 and 23 August 2019
LLC Komstroy, as successor in interest to LLC Energoalliance v.
Republic of Moldova
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US No. 998. (1) KT Corporation (Korea) and (2) KTSAT Corporation (Korea) v. (1) ABS Holdings, Ltd. (nationality not indicated) and (2) ABS Global, Ltd. (nationality not indicated), United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 18-2300-cv, 12 September 2019
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit,
12 September 2019
KT Corporation et al. v. ABS Holdings, Ltd. et al.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US No. 997. Al Raha Group for Technical Services (Saudi Arabia) v. PKL Services, Inc. (US), United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-04194-AT, 6 September 2019
United States District Court, Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, 6 September 2019
Al Raha Group for Technical Services v. PKL Services, Inc.
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
US No. 996. Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited (Nigeria) et al. v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (Nigeria), United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 14-cv-8445 (WHP), 4 September 2019
United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, 4 September 2019
Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National
Petroleum Corporation
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US No. 995. Antoine Savine (nationality not indicated) v. Interactive Brokers, LLC (US), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, 18-cv-1846 (KAD), 5 August 2019
United States District Court, District of Connecticut,
5 August 2019
Antoine Savine v. Interactive Brokers, LLC
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US 992. Stemcor USA Incorporated v. CIA Siderurgica do Para COSIPAR et al., United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-30984, 25 June 2019
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
US 991. Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone International Trade Service Co., Ltd. v. Tiancheng Chempharm, Inc. USA, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 18-1918-cv, 4 June 2019
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
US 990. PAO Tatneft v. Ukraine, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, No. 18-7057, 28 May 2019
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
US 989. McDonnel Group, L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Insurance SE, UK Branch et al., United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, No. 18-30817, 13 May 2019
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 988. Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. v. Del Monte International GmbH, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Nos. 16-17623 & 17-12163, 23 April 2019
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 987. Anatolie Stati, et al. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, No. 18-7047, 19 April 2019
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
US No. 994. Konoike Construction Co. Ltd. (Japan) v. Ministry of Works, Tanzania, et al. (Tanzania), United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 1:17-cv-01986, 6 March 2019
United States District Court, District of Columbia,
6 March 2019
Konoike Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ministry of Works, Tanzania, et al.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 985. Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, No. 17-7068, 14 February 2019
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 984. Ytech 180 Units Miami Beach Investments LLC V. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, Case No. 18-24770-CV-GRAHAM, 13 February 2019
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
US 986. Michael D. Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Company LLC et al., United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 17-35703, 27 February 2019
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
US 983. Gretton Ltd v. Republic of Uzbekistan, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. BON201800432, 6 February 2019
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 982. Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic - Ministry of Health, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, No. 17-7154, 26 October 2018
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
On 13 July 2018, the Federal Court granted the application to stay enforcement of a SIAC award pending an annulment action in Singapore, and directed the respondent to provide security until November 2019, when the Singapore action was expected to be heard. On 13 September 2018, the Court granted leave to proceed with the enforcement action: this was necessary as a consequence of voluntary administrators having been appointed for the respondent. By the present decision, the Court lifted the stay and granted enforcement, with the agreement of both the applicant and the recently appointed administrators, who had discovered that the respondent had never been in a position to provide the security ordered, and had not had sufficient time to consider the merits of the Singapore annulment application. See also the decisions of 13 July 2018 and 13 September 2018.
Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry, General Division, 2 October 2018
(Hyundai Engineering & Steel Industries Co Ltd v. Alfasi Steel Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd (later: Two Ways Constructions Pty Ltd)
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 961. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC et al. v. Converteam SAS, a foreign corporation now known as GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, No. 17-10944, 30 August 2018
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 981. Gater Assets Ltd. v. AO Gazsnabtranzit, AO Moldovagaz and the Republic of Moldova, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 99-cv-11962 (LAP); 16-cv-04118 (LAP), 30 September 2018
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 964. Sunshine Shopping Center, Inc. (d/b/a Sunshine Mall) v. LG Electronics Panama, S.A. et al., District Court, Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix, Civil Action No. 2015-0041, 21 September 2018
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
US 963. Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone International Trade Service Co., Ltd. v. Tiancheng International, Inc. USA, United States District Court, Central District of California, No. ED CV 17-2127 PA (SHKx), 18 September 2018
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
US 962. Nanko Shipping, Guinea v. Alcoa, Inc. et al., United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 14-1301 (RMC), 14 September 2018
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 980. Pharmaniaga Berhad v. E*Healthonline.com, Inc., United States District Court, Eastern District of California, No. 2:17-cv-02672-MCE-EFB, 7 September 2018
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the meaning of an award having been “suspended” in the country of origin, including when the award has been suspended by operation of law rather than by a court decision.
US 960. Albtelecom SH.A v. UNIFI Communications, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 16 Civ. 9001 (PAE), 28 August 2018
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
US 979. PDC Machines Inc. v. NEL Hydrogen A/S (formerly known as H2 Logic A/S et al.), United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 17-5399, 22 August 2018
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 978. Nanoelectro Research and Production Co. v. Alphysica Inc., United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 17-cv-11378-ADB, 9 August 2018
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 977. Esther Ventura de Rendon v. Viviane Ventura et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, Case No. 1:17-CV-24380-MORENO/LOUIS, 8 August 2018 and 18 September 2018
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 975. VVG Real Estate Investments v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 18-cv-61237-BLOOM/Valle, 1 August 2018
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 976. Internaves de Mexico S.A. de C.V. v. Andromeda Steamship Corporation, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, No. 17-12164, 1 August 2018
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US No. 974. Sistem Mühendislik Inşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret, A.Ş. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 16-4153-cv, 17 July 2018
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the admissibility of a set off or counterclaim in enforcement proceedings under the Convention.
US 972. KT Corporation, et al. v. ABS Holdings, Ltd., et al., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 17 Civ. 7859 (LGS), 10 July 2018 and 12 July 2018
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 973. Stemcor USA Incorporated v. Cia Siderurgica do Para COSIPAR, et al., United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-30984, 11 July 2018
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
US 971. Venco Imtiaz Construction Company v. Symbion Power LLC, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, No. 17-7102, 10 July 2018
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 970. Purus Plastics GmbH v. Eco-Terr Distributing, Inc., United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Case No. C18-0277JLR, 21 June 2018
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
US 969. Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A., et al. v. Autoridad del Canal de Panama, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Civil Action No. 17-23996-Civ-Scola, 20 June 2018 and 13 November 2018
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
US 968. Liu Luwei et al v. Phyto Tech Corp., United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV 18-2174-JFW(GJSx), 18 June 2018
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US No. 2019-1. John Lindsey et al. v. Punta Vista Bahia S.A., United States District Court, District of Arizona, No. CV-17-04596-PHX-JJT, 15 June 2018
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US No. 2019-2. CBF Industria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 13 Civ. 2581 (RWS), 15 June 2018
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
US 966. John Lindsey et al. v. Punta Vista Bahia S.A., United States District Court, District of Arizona, No. CV-17-04596-PHX-JJT, 15 June 2018
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 967. CBF Industria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 13 Civ. 2581 (RWS), 15 June 2018
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
US 965. Denver Global Products, Inc. v. Roger Leon et al., United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-00102-MOC-DSC, 11 June 2018 and 16 July 2018
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
US 959. Hardy Exploration & Production (India), Inc. v. Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 16-140 (RC), 7 June 2018
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 958. Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Int’l Trade Serv. Co. v. Tiancheng Chempharm, Inc. USA, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Docket No. 17-CV-4130 (JS) (AYS), 30 May 2018
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
US 950. Rusoro Mining Limited v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Case No. 16-cv-02020 (RJL), 2 March 2018
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 957. Foresight Energy, LLC v. Certain London Market Insurance Companies et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, No. 4:17-CV-2266 CAS, 25 April 2018
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 956. Sladjana Cvoro v. Carnival Corporation, d/b/a Carnival Cruise Lines, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, Case No. 16-21559-CIV-MORENO, 5 April 2018
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 955. Anatoli Stati et al. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 14-1638 (ABJ), 23 March 2018
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
US 954. Balkan Energy Limited et al. v. Republic of Ghana, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 17-cv-00584 (APM), 22 March 2018
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 953. PAO Tatneft v. Ukraine, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 17-582 (CKK), 19 March 2018
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 952. Transocean Offshore Gulf of Guinea VII Limited et al. v. Erin Energy Corporation (f/k/a CAMAC Energy Inc.), United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Civil Action No. H-17-2623, 12 March 2018
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
US 951. BSH Hausgerate GmbH v. Jak Kamhi, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 17 Civ. 5776, 2 March 2018
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
US 949. General Electric Company v. Sampo Corporation, et al., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 16-CV-2456 (AJN), 12 January 2018
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 948. Kaiser Group International, Inc. et al. v. Nova Hut A.S. et al., United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, Chapter 11, Case No. 00-2263 (MFW) (Jointly Administered), Adv. No. 01-928 (MFW), 8 January 2018
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
US 947. OOO FC Grand Capital v. International Pharmaceutical Services Ltd. et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 16-CV-6156 (JS) (SIL), 15 December 2017 and 14 February 2018
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
US 946. Michelle Haasbroek v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 17-cv-22370-KMM, 12 December 2017
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 945. Esther Margarita Lima Suarez Viuda de Yang, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Chang Cheol Yang, Deceased, et al. v. Majestic Blue Fisheries (US), LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 15-16881, 30 November 2017
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 944. Alexander Mirza v. Cachet Hotel Group Limited Cayman L.P. et al., United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 17-CV-07140-RGK-KS, 17 November 2017
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 943. TMCO Ltd. v. Green Light Energy Solutions R&D Corp., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 4:17-cv-00997-KAW, 14 November 2017
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 942. Sharp Corporation et al. v. Hisense USA Corporation et al., United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 17-1648 (JEB), 13 November 2017
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 941. Dastime Group Limited v. Moonvale Investments Limited et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 17-cv-01859-JSW, 11 October 2017 and 3 November 2017
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
US 940. OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corp. et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Civil Action H-09-891, 2 October 2017
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses issues relating to the moment when the documents that are required for seeking recognition and enforcement must be supplied, and whether any defect can be cured later in the enforcement proceeding.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 939. Julia Damaris Toruno Pineda v. Oceania Cruises, Inc. et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Civil Action No. 17-20544-Civ-Scola, 28 September 2017
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 938. DIAG Human, S.E. v. Czech Republic – Ministry of Health, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 13-0355 (ABJ), 27 September 2017
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
US 937. Rodrigo R. Pagaduan v. Carnival Corporation, dba Carnival Cruise Lines et al., United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 16-465, 18 September 2017
The court discusses issues specific to an arbitration agreement concluded through an agent or broker, e.g., whether the authorization to conclude it must also be in writing.
US 936. SBMH Group DMCC et al. v. Noadiam USA, LLC d/b/a Sky Organics et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 17-22605-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman, 15 September 2017 and 27 October 2017
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 935. Stemcor USA Incorporated et al. v. CIA Siderurgica do Para COSIPAR et al., United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-30984, 1 September 2017
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
US 920. Brittania-U Nigeria, Limited v. Chevron USA, Incorporated, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 9 August 2017
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
US 934. Michael D. Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Company, LLC, et al., United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Case No. C17-8RSL, 31 July 2017
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 919. Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 20 July 2017
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US 918. amberger Rosenheim, Ltd. v. OA Development, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 17 July 2017
US 917. Getma International v. Republic of Guinea, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 7 July 2017
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US 916. The University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo, LLC et al., United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 28 June 2017
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
US 933. Venco Imtiaz Construction Company v. Symbion Power LLC, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 16-1737 (JDB), 31 May 2017
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 932. Albtelecom SH.A v. UNIFI Communications, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 16 Civ. 9001 (PAE), 30 May 2017
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
US 931. Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. v. Del Monte International GmbH, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, Case No. 16-24275-CIV-MORENO, 2 May 2017
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 915. Belize Bank Limited v. Government of Belize, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 16-7083 Consolidated with 16-7089 and 16-7094, 31 March 2017
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
US 930. Internaves de Mexico S.A. de C.V. v. Andromeda Steamship Corporation et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 16-81719-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS, 29 March 2017
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
US 929. Cerner Middle East Limited v. iCapital, LLC and Ahmed Saeed Mahmoud Al-Badie Al-Dahari [Cerner 4], United States District Court, District of Oregon, Case No. 3:16-cv-01631-YY, 27 March 2017 and 14 June 2017
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 914. Crystallex International v. Venezuela, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 16-0661 (RC), 25 March 2017
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 913. CBF Indústria de Gusa S/A et al. v. AMCI Holdings, Inc. et al., United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2 March 2017
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US 912. Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC et al., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 1 March 2017
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 928. Cerner Middle East Limited v. Ahmed Saeed Mahmoud Al-Badie Al-Dhaheri [Cerner 3], United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 16-11984-FDS, 28 February 2017
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 927. Cerner Middle East Limited v. Belbadi Enterprises LLC and Vandevco Limited [Cerner 2], United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Case No. C16-5706RBL, 14 February 2017
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 924. Cerner Middle East Limited v. Belbadi Enterprises LLC and Orland Limited [Cerner 1], United States District Court, District of Oregon, 3:16-CV-1630-PK, 14 November 2016, 10 February 2017
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 926. Salini Costruttori S.P.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 14-cv-2036 (TSC), 10 February 2017
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
US 908.Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, et al. v. Converteam SAS n/k/a GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp., United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama, Case No. CA 16-0378-KD-C, 22 November 2016, 30 January 2017 and 3 February 2017
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 911. Science Applications International Corp. v. The Hellenic Republic, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 13-cv-1070(GK), 5 January 2017
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 925. Eazy Electronics & Technology, LLC, et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al., United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, Civil No. 16-1830 (GAG), 30 December 2016
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 910. Enron Nigeria Power Holding, Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 15-7121, 27 December 2016
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 909. Sladjana Cvoro v. Carnival Corp., d/b/a Carnival Cruise Lines, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 16-21559-CIV-MORENO/O’SULLIVAN, 28 November 2016
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 907. Linley Investments, et al. v. Jerry Jamgotchian, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 14-56437, 14 November 2016
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
US 883. P43, PDV Sweeny, Inc. (US) et al. v. ConocoPhillips Co., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 1 September 2015 and United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 7 November 2016
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 906. Mondis Technology Ltd. v. Wistron Corporation, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 15-CV-02340 (RA), 3 November 2016
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 905. Matthew Charles Mitchell v. David Tillett et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 15-cv-04044-VC, 28 October 2016
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US 903. Hulley Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. The Russian Federation, United States District Court, District of Columbia, 30 September 2016
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 904. Sistem Muhendislik Insaat Ve Ticaret, A.S. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 12-CV-4502 (ALC), 30 September 2016
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 902. Benjamin Michael Merryman et al. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 29 September 2016
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 901. Africard Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Niger, United States District Court, District of Columbia, 27 September 2016
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 923. Asphalt Trader Ltd. v. Taryn Capital Energy, L.L.C., United States District Court, District of Utah, Case No. 1:16-cv-00054-JNP, 27 September 2016
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 900. Air-Con, Inc. v. Daikin Applied Latin America LLC, et al., United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, 19 September 2016
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 899. Ali Imam Shah v. Blue Wake Shipping, United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Case No. 2:16 -CV-00529, 30 August 2016 and 30 November 2016
US 898. Francis D’Cruz v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 29 August 2016
US 897. Robert M. Alberts v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 23 August 2016
US 896. Sural (Barbados) Ltd. v. The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago through its Minister of Finance as Corporation Sole, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 12 August 2016
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
US 922. Ziad Sakr Fakhri v. Marriot International Hotels, Inc., United States District Court, District of Maryland, Civil No. PJM 14-840, 12 August 2016
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US No. 895, Anatolie Stati et al. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, United States District Court, District of Columbia, 5 August 2016
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 894. Valtech Solutions, Inc., et al. v. Deborah Davenport, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-3361-D, 21 July 2016
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 893. Xiangkai Xu v. China Sunergy (US) Clean Tech Inc., et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 15-cv-04823-HRL, 20 July 2016
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 892. CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science & Technology Co., Ltd v. Lumos LLC, n/k/a Lumos Solar LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, No. 15-1256, 19 July 2016
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
US 891. Mauricio Wior v. BellSouth Corporation, United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Case No. 1:15-CV-02375-ELR, 29 June 2016
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
US 890. Maren Miller v. Tri Marine Fish Company et al., United States District Court, Central District of California, LA CV16-02203 JAK (SSx), 28 June 2016
US 889. GE Transportation (Shenyang) Co., Ltd. v. A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 15 Civ. 6194 (PAE), 22 June 2016
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
US 888. Roberts Irrigation Company, Inc. v. (1) Hortau Corp., (2) Hortau, Inc., United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 16-cv-0028-slc, 20 June 2016
The court discusses the status of an arbitration agreement in a contract that was amended or renewed.
US 887. Alstom Brasil Energia e Transporte Ltda v. Mitsui Sumitomo Seguros S.A., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 15 Civ. 8221 (AKH), 20 June 2016
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
US 880. Getma International v. The Republic of Guinea, United States District Court, District of Columbia, 9 June 2016
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US 879. The Belize Bank Limited v. Government of Belize, United States District Court, District of Columbia, 8 June 2016
The court discusses the impact of the nationality of the parties on the application of the Convention.
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
US 886. Diag Human, S.E. v. Czech Republic, Ministry of Health, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, No. 14-7142, 31 May 2016
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
US 878. The Government of Belize v. Newco Limited, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 13 May 2016
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 877. The Government of Belize v. BCB Holdings Limited et al., United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 13 May 2016
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 876. Willman Suazo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 10 May 2016
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 875. Research and Development Center “Teploenergetika”, LLC v. EP International, LLC et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, 26 April 2016
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 874. China Media Express Holdings, Inc. v. Nexus Executive Risks, Ltd (f/k/a Torus Executive Risks, Ltd) et al., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 25 April 2016
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 873. The University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo, LLC et al., United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, 7 April 2016
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 872. Brian Leighton v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 5 April 2016
US 885. Vitaly Ivanovich Smagin v. Ashot Yegiazaryan, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV 14-9764-R, 17 March 2016
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
US 871. Casa del Caffé Vergnano SpA et al. v. Italflavors, LLC et al., United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 15 March 2016
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 870. Emmanuel Navarette v. Silversea Cruises Ltd et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 7 March 2016
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 884. Apple Inc. v. BYD Company Limited, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, 2 March 2016
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 869. Interdigital Communications, Inc., et al. v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd, et al., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 23 February 2016
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 868. Crescendo Maritime Co. v. Bank of Communications Co. Ltd, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 22 February 2016
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
US 867. Kelly David Johnson v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd d/b/a Norwegian Cruise Line, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Case No. 15-4400 Section: “G”(3), 19 February 2016
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 848. Zurich American Insurance co., as subrogee of Vinmar International, Ltd, et al. v. Team Tankers A.S. et al., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 13cv8404, 30 June 2014 and United States District Court, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 14-4036-cv, 28 January 2016
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 866. Euro Pacific Capital Inc. et al. v. Bohai Pharmaceuticals Group, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 15-cv-4410, 21 January 2016
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 865. Bayer Cropscience AG et al. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, Civil Action no. 2:12cv47, 15 January 2016
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 864. Kven OJSC v. Thunderbolt Enterprises, Ltd, United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Case No. 15-cv-02304-LB, 10 December 2015
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 863. GE Transportation Co., Ltd v. A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 15 Civ. 6194 (PAE), 23 November 2015
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 862. Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. Civil Action No. 14-2014 (JEB), 20 November 2015
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 861. Baysand Inc. v. Toshiba Corporation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Case No. 15-cv-02425-BLF, 19 November 2015
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
US 860. Navig8 Chemicals Asia Pte., Ltd. v. Crest Energy Partners, LP, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 15 Civ. 7639 (PAE), 18 November 2015
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 859. Intel Capital v. Shan Yi, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 15-mc-50406, 13 November 2015
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
US 858. Claudia Ester Sierra v. Cruise Ships Catering and Services International, NV et al., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 14-14940 Non-Argument Calendar, 10 November 2015
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 857. Don Crowden v. Entergy Corporation, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Case No. Civil Action No. 15-3665 Section A(3), 9 November 2015
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 856. Getma International v. The Republic of Guinea, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. Civil Action No. 14-1616 (RBW), 3 November 2015
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 855. Outokumpu Stainless, LLC, formerly known as Thyssenkrupp Stainless USA, LLC v. Siemens Industry, Inc., successor in interest to Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division, Civil Action No. 15-00243-KD-N, 20 October 2015
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 854. Intel Capital (Cayman) Corporation v. Angie Hsia et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 15-cv-01287-VC, 16 October 2015
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
US 853. Richard Vento v. Duane Crithfield et al., United States District Court, District of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, Civil No. 2009-174, 30 September 2015
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses issues relating to the manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.
US .851. P41, DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. and Dynaresource, Inc. v. Goldgroup Resources, Inc., United States District Court, District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 14-cv- 01527-MSK-KMT, 27 August 2015 and 29 September 2015
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
US 847. United States District Court, Central District of California, 18 September 2015
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 852. P42, PDV Sweeny, Inc., et al. v. ConocoPhillips Co., et al., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 14-cv-5183 (AJN), 1 September 2015
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 830. United States District Court, District of Guam, 14 January 2015 and 24 August 2015
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 846. United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 19 August 2015
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
US 850. Newco Limited v. The Government of Belize, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. Civil Action No. 08-2010 (RJL), 7 August 2015
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US 822. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 24 June 2014 and United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 5 August 2015
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
The court discusses the status of an arbitration agreement in a contract that was amended or renewed.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 845. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 4 August 2015
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 844. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 21 July 2015
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
US 843. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 14 July 2015
The court discusses issues relating to the requirement to supply the original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof to prove the prima facie validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as the application of more favorable municipal laws that do not provide for this requirement.
US 842. United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 13 July 2015
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 825. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 2 October 2014 and United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1 July 2015
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
US 849. Jorge Escobar v. Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. No. 14-11793, 25 June 2015
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 841. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 24 June 2015
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 840. United States District Court, District of Colorado, 29 May 2015
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
US 839. United States District Court, District of New Jersey, 20 May 2015555
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 838. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 1 May 2015
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 837. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 16 April 2015
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 836. United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 24 March 2015
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 835. United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 13 March 2015
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
US 834. United States District Court, Northern District of California, 6 March 2015
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 832. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 13 February 2015 and 4 March 2015
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
US 833. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 24 February 2015
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
US 831. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 16 January 2015
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
US 829. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 10 December 2014
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 828. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 3 December 2014
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 827. United States District Court, District of Vermont, 25 November 2014
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 826. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 4 November 2014
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
US 824. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 10 September 2014
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 802. United States District Court, Southern District of California, 22 August 2013 and 22 August 2014
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
US 821. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 14 August 2014
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
US 820. United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 8 August 2014
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 2006.
US 823. United States District Court, District of Maryland, 7 August 2014
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 819. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 18 July 2014
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 818. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 11 July 2014
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses issues relating to the more-favorable right provision in general, including who may invoke it, and when.
US 817. United States District Court, Southern District of California, 4 June 2014
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
US 816. United States District Court, District of Utah, Northern Division, 20 May 2014
US 808. United States District Court, District of Minnesota, 31 January 2014 and 5 May 2014
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
US 815. United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 30 April 2014
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 796. United States District Court, Central District of California, 30 July 2012 and United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 29 April 2014
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 814. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 25 April 2014
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 813. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 9 April 2014
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
US 812. United States Supreme Court, 5 March 2014
US 811. United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, 4 March 2014
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 882. Elvis Mueller Cristy v. (1) MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA., (2) MSC Cruises (USA), Inc., (3) MSC Crociere, S.A., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 13-61720-Civ-SCOLA, 21 February 2014; United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit; Case No. 14-11241, Non-Argument Calendar, 26 November 2014
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 810. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 20 February 2014
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
US 807. United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 27 January 2014 and 10 February 2014
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 809. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 6 February 2014
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 806. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 11 December 2013
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses how to determine whether the document supplied is an award capable of being recognized and enforced, including whether the award is duly authenticated, and whether a copy is duly certified; whether a prior interim and/or partial award should be supplied together with the final award.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the meaning of an award having been “suspended” in the country of origin, including when the award has been suspended by operation of law rather than by a court decision.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
US 798. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 13 March 2013 and United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 25 November 2013
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 805. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 18 November 2013
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 804. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 31 October 2013
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
US 803. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 29 October 2013
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 794. United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 11 September 2013
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 793. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 27 August 2013
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US 779. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 26 September 2011 and United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 7 August 2013
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
US 792. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 6 August 2013
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 881. Ashok Kumar v. Carnival Corporation, d/b/a Carnival Cruise Lines, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case no. 12-23175-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON, 1 July 2013
The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.
US 797. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 18 October 2012 and United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 24 June 2013
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 801. United States District Court, District of Maryland, 11 June 2013
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 800. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 6 June 2013
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 791. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 3 June 2013
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
US 790. United States District Court, Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division, 3 May 2013
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 799. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 1 May 2013
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
US 789. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 26 March 2013
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
US 788. United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 21 March 2013
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
US 787. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 18 March 2013
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
US 785. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 21 December 2012
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 786. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 21 December 2012
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 784. United States District Court, Central District of California, 17 December 2012
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 783. United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 6 December 2012
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
US 782. United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, 3 December 2012
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
US P33. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 21 November 2012
US 781. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 19 September 2012
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 780. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 10 September 2012
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
US 778. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 24 August 2012
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
US 777. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 8 August 2012
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
US 776. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 26 July 2012
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 775. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 20 July 2012
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 774. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 13 July 2012
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 773. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 12 July 2012
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 772. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 9 July 2012
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 2006.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 771. United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, 12 June 2012
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 795. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 11 June 2012
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 770. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 10 April 2012
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 769. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2 April 2012
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 768. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 28 March 2012
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 767. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 23 March 2012
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 766. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 16 March 2012
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
US 765. United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 12 March 2012
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 764. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 24 February 2012
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 763. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 13 February 2012
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 762. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 3 February 2012
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
US 760. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 17 January 2012
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
US 761. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 17 January 2012
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 759. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 13 January 2012
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 758. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 5 January 2012
US 755. United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, 7 December 2011 and 14 March 2012
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 757. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 15 December 2011
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 756. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 14 December 2011
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
US 921. Asia Pacific Hotel Guam, Inc. v. Dongbu Insurance Company, Supreme Court of Guam, Case No. CVA10-021, 24 October 2011
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
US 753. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 18 October 2011
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 754. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 18 October 2011
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 752. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 29 August 2011
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 2006.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 747. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 3 August 2011
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 748. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 3 August 2011
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 746. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 26 July 2011
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 745. United States District Court, Northern District of California, 6 July 2011
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 744. United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, 22 June 2011
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 751. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 15 June 2011
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 743. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 2 June 2011
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
US 742. United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 25 April 2011
US 741. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 15 April 2011
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 740. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 29 March 2011
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
US 739. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 28 March 2011
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 738. United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 24 March 2011 and 12 May 2011
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 737. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 17 March 2011
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 736. Supreme Court of New York State, Appellate Division, First Department, 10 March 2011
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
US 735. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 8 March 2011
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 734. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 3 March 2011
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 733. United States District Court, Southern District of California, 28 February 2011
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 732. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 25 February 2011
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 731. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 16 February 2011
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 750. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 10 February 2011 and United States Court of Appeals, 5 July 2012
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 730. United States District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division, 31 January 2011
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 727. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 21 January 2011
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US 728. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 21 January 2011
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 729. United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, Northern Division, 21 January 2011
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 726. United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 4 January 2011
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 725. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 15 December 2010
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 724. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 14 December 2010
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 723. United States District Court, District of Hawaii, 2 November 2010
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 722. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 1 November 2010
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 721. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 25 October 2010
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 720. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 19 October 2010, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 6 January 2011 and United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 8 February 2011
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 719. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 12 October 2010
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 718. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, 7 October 2010
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 717. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 28 September 2010
US 716. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 10 September 2010
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 712. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 18 August 2010
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 711. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 10 August 2010
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 710. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 29 July 2010
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 709. United States District Court, Southern District of California, 15 July 2010
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses issues specific to an arbitration agreement concluded through an agent or broker, e.g., whether the authorization to conclude it must also be in writing.
US 708. United States District Court, District of New Jersey, 29 June 2010
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
US 707. United States District Court, District of New Jersey, 21 June 2010
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 706. United States District Court, Southern District of California, 17 June 2010
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 705. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, 15 June 2010
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 704. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 7 June 2010
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
US 715. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 7 June 2010 and United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 11 March 2011
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
US 703. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 18 May 2010
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 702. United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 14 May 2010
The court discusses the status of an arbitration agreement in a contract that was amended or renewed.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 701. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, 11 May 2010
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 700. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 15 April 2010
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 699. United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, 8 April 2010 and 14 June 2010
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 698. United States District Court, District of Colorado, 2 April 2010
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 697. United States District Court, Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, 29 March 2010
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 696. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 23 March 2010
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses the impact of the nationality of the parties on the application of the Convention.
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the meaning of an award having been “suspended” in the country of origin, including when the award has been suspended by operation of law rather than by a court decision.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 749. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 22 March 2010 and United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 23 September 2011
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
US 714. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 18 March 2010 and United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 28 March 2011
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 694. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 16 March 2010
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 695. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 16 March 2010
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 693. United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 11 March 2010
US 692. United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 10 March 2010 and 4 August 2010
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
US 713. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 23 February 2010
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US 691. United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, 9 February 2010
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 690. United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division, 4 December 2009
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 689. United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 25 November 2009 and 2 December 2009
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 688. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 19 November 2009
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
US 687. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 13 November 2009
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 685. United States District Court, District of Utah, Central Division, 9 November 2009
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 686. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 9 November 2009
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 684. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 28 October 2009
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 683. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 15 October 2009
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
US 682. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 8 October 2009
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 681. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2 October 2009
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 679. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 28 September 2009
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
US 678. United States District Court, District of Maryland, 28 August 2009
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses how to determine whether the document supplied is an award capable of being recognized and enforced, including whether the award is duly authenticated, and whether a copy is duly certified; whether a prior interim and/or partial award should be supplied together with the final award.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 677. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 12 August 2009
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 676. Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, 16 July 2009
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 675. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 9 July 2009
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 674. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 1 July 2009
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 672. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 29 June 2009
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 673. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 29 June 2009
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 671. United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 26 June 2009
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 670. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 23 June 2009
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 680. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 22 June 2009 and 26 February 2010
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 669. United States District Court, District of Delaware, 20 May 2009
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 668. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 12 May 2009
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 667. United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 27 April 2009
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 666. United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 13 April 2009
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 665. United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, 7 April 2009
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 664. United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 31 March 2009
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 663. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 27 March 2009
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
US 662. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 13 February 2009
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Related court proceedings: The court discusses measures in aid of arbitration (e.g., anti-suit injunction). This topic also includes the issue of the relationship between the Convention and the recognition of a foreign judgment on the validity of the arbitration agreement.
US 661. United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 5 February 2009
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 660. United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, 23 January 2009
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses the applicability of this requirement under (domestic) US law – that parties must have expressed in the arbitration agreement their consent that judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award –in respect of Convention awards.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 659. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, 16 January 2009
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 658. United States District Court, District of Delaware, 20 November 2008 and 13 August 2009
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the meaning of an award having been “suspended” in the country of origin, including when the award has been suspended by operation of law rather than by a court decision.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 657. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 29 September 2008
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
US 656. United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 24 September 2008
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
US 655. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 16 September 2008
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 652. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 27 August 2008
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
US 651. United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 22 August 2008
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 650. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 12 August 2008
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 649. United States District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma, 8 August 2008
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 648. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 30 July 2008
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
US 647. United States District Court, District of New Jersey, 24 July 2008
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 646. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 14 July 2008
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
US 645. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 19 June 2008
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
US 644. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 3 June 2008
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
US 654. United States District Court, Northern District of California, 23 May 2008
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 643. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 22 May 2008
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 642. United States District Court, District of New Jersey, 21 May 2008
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 641. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 28 April 2008
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 640. United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, 8 April 2008
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 639. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 4 March 2008
US 638. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 20 February 2008
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the admissibility of a set off or counterclaim in enforcement proceedings under the Convention.
US 636. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 6 February 2008
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 637. United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 6 February 2008
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 635. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 1 February 2008
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 634. United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 25 January 2008
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
US 633. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 7 January 2008
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 2006.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
US 632. United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 10 December 2007
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
US 631. United States District Court, District of New Jersey, 7 November 2007
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
US 630. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 2 November 2007
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 629. United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, 18 October 2007
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
US 628. United States District Court, District of Delaware, 28 September 2007
The court discusses whether a declaratory judgment on the validity of the arbitration agreement is available under the Convention.
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
US 627. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 7 September 2007
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US 626. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, 15 August 2007
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.
US 625. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 1 August 2007
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the lack of reasons in the award on its recognition and enforcement.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 624. United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 20 June 2007
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 623. United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, 7 June 2007
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
US 621. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 25 May 2007
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
US 622. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 25 May 2007
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 620. United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, 19 April 2007
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
US 619. United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, 3 April 2007
The court discusses issues specific to bills of lading and charterparties, such as whether the subsequent holder of the bill of lading is bound by the arbitration agreement therein and whether the arbitration clause in the charterparty is incorporated into the bill of lading.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
US 618. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 30 March 2007
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.
US 617. United States District Court, District of Connecticut, 9 March 2007
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
US 616. United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division, 5 March 2007
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.
US 615. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 21 February 2007
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.
US 611. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 31 January 2007
The court discusses the second alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitration agreement is “contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
US 653. United States District Court, Central District of California, 25 January 2007 and United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 6 November 2008
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.