- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- UNITED STATES 1067
UNITED STATES 1067
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. ... Read more
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)
UNITED STATES 1067
The District Court granted confirmation of a nondomestic New York award. It rejected, as being precluded by res judicata, Haiti’s argument that it enjoyed immunity because the arbitration exception to the FSIA – pursuant to which there is no immunity where the foreign state has agreed to submit contractual disputes to arbitration – did not apply, because Haiti had not signed the arbitration agreements at issue. The Court found that this argument had already been already denied by the New York Supreme Court in a proceeding by which Haiti had moved to stay the arbitration.
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.