- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- UNITED STATES 1072
UNITED STATES 1072
United States District Court, Central District of California, 17 June 2024, Case No. 2:24-cv-01265-RGK-PD
(Gate Gourmet Korea Co., Ltd. v. Asiana Airlines, Inc)
UNITED STATES 1072
The District Court granted confirmation of a Singapore award. The respondent argued that agreement on which the award was based was tainted by criminal activity, and therefore violated public policy, and was invalid under the governing Korean law. The Court observed, first, that the criminal acts had been committed by the respondent’s own CEO and employees, and, second, that the argument of the agreement’s invalidity had already been denied by a Korean court in enforcement proceedings in Korea.
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 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 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.