Recent United States Court Decisions concerning International Arbitration - Part 3 - Chapter 1 - ICDR Awards and Commentaries

Author(s):

David Zaslowsky

Page Count:

52 pages

Media Description:

1 PDF Download from "ICDR Awards and Commentaries"

Published:

September, 2012

Jurisdictions:

International

Practice Areas:

Commercial Disputes,

Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements,

Court Decisions,

Enforcement of Arbitral Awards,

ICDR

Author Detail:

David Zaslowsky has been with Baker & McKenzie since graduating from Yale Law School in 1984. He practices in the area of general commercial litigation and arbitration. Mr. Zaslowsky has appeared in various Federal and State courts (trial and appellate) throughout the country and has participated in arbitrations, both inside and outside the United States, before the American Arbitration Association, International Chamber of Commerce, International Centre for Dispute Resolution, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Hong Kong International Arbitration Center and NASD, as well as in ad hoc arbitrations. He is co-author of the International Litigation column in the New York Law Journal and speaks regularly at arbitration seminars around the world. Mr. Zaslowsky is included in the Chambers USA Guide for his expertise in International Arbitration. He is also on the roster of arbitrators for the International Centre for Dispute Resolution

Grant Hanessian is Co-Chair of Baker & McKenzie's International Arbitration Practice Group and Chair of the Litigation/Dispute Resolution Department of the firm's New York office.

Mr. Hanessian has acted as counsel or arbitrator in more than 100 international cases concerning contract, energy, construction, commodities, insurance, intellectual property and other matters and arising under many national laws and bilateral and multilateral investment treaties. Mr. Hanessian is a member of the Commission on Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce and the ICC Task Force on Arbitration Involving States or State Entities. He is co-editor of three other books on international dispute resolution and is recommended by the Chambers USA Guide in the field of international
arbitration.

Jacob M. Kaplan is an Associate in Baker & McKenzie’s New York office and a member of the firm’s Dispute Resolution Practice Group. Mr. Kaplan primarily handles international litigation and commercial arbitration. He has participated in ICSID, ICDR and ad hoc arbitrations, as well as state and federal litigation involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, in addition to general contract disputes. He regularly contributes to— and assists in the editing of—Baker & McKenzie’s International Litigation and Arbitration Alerts newsletter. He is also one of the primary authors of "Obtaining Evidence Located in the US for Use in Foreign Litigation," published in the first volume of International Business Litigation & Arbitration. A member of the ABA, the New York State Bar Association, and the New York City Bar, he served as secretary of the Arbitration Committee of the New York City Bar and currently serves as secretary of the International Arbitration Club of New York. Mr. Kaplan was a law clerk for the Honorable Milton Pollack of the Southern District of New York and an intern for the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Kaplan holds a B.A. from Yale University and a J.D. from Columbia Law School and was awarded the Parker School Certificate for Achievement in International and Comparative Law.

PDF431.79 KB

$40.00

Description:

Originally from ICDR Awards and Commentaries

Preview page

RECENT UNITED STATES COURT DECISIONS CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION1

I. Effect and Enforcement of International Arbitration Agreements

A. Mercury Telco Group, Inc., v. Empresa de Telecommunicaciones de Bogota S.A. E.S.P., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

District court grants motion to dismiss action in favor of arbitration.

Plaintiff brought an action in Florida federal court alleging claims of anticipatory breach of contract, tortious interference, fraud in the inducement, violation of the Lanham Act, and defamation, arising out of the parties' agreement to commercialize prepaid calling cards for long distance calls. Defendant moved to dismiss the action in favor of arbitration based on the broad arbitration clause contained in the agreement. Defendant argued that the strong public policy favoring arbitration required that the action be dismissed. Plaintiff countered that some of its claims, particularly fraud in the inducement of the entire agreement, should be resolved by the court, not the arbitrator.

In reviewing the motion to dismiss, the court considered three factors: (1) whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate existed, (2) whether an arbitrable issue existed, and (3) whether the right to arbitrate was waived.

Table of Contents:

Recent United States Court Decisions concerning International Arbitration
I Effect and Enforcement of International Arbitration Agreements
A Mercury Telco Group, Inc, v Empresa de Telecommunicaciones de Bogota SA ESP, 670 F Supp 2d 1350 (SD Fla 2009)
B In the Matter of: Mirant Corporation, MC Asset Recovery LLC v Castex Energy, Inc, 613 F3d 584 (5th Cir 2010)
C Newmont USA Ltd v Ins Co of North America, 615 F3d 1268 (10th Cir 2010)
D Ruiz v Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc, 754 F Supp 2d 1328 (SD Fla 2010)
E Williams v NCL (Bahamas) Ltd, 774 F Supp 2d 1232 (SD Fla 2011)
F Cape Flattery Ltd v Titan Maritime, LLC, 647 F3d 914 (9th Cir 2011)
G Grigsby & Associates, Inc v M Securities Investment, No 09-11817, 2011 US App LEXIS 25217 (11th Cir Dec 20, 2011)
H Republic of Argentina v BG Group PLC, No 11-7021, 2012 US App LEXIS 905 (DC Cir Jan 17, 2012)

II Provisional Measures in International Arbitration
A Ob' Edinennyi Investitsionnyi Bank", No 09-cv-6121, 2010 US Dist LEXIS 19717 (SDNY Mar 3, 2009)
B Everspeed Enterprises Ltd v Skaarup Shipping Int'l, 754 F Supp 2d 395 (D Conn 2010)
C Sojitz Corp v Prithvi Information Solutions, Inc, 82 AD3d 89 (NY App Div 1st Dept 2011)
D In re Application of Thai Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co, 11 Misc 313, 2011 US Dist LEXIS 125464 (DDC Oct 31, 2011)

III Recognition and Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards
A Empresa de Telecommunicaciones de Bogota SA ESP v Mercury Telco Group, Inc, 670 F Supp 2d 1357 (SD Fla 2009)
B EDF Int’l SA v YPF SA, 676 F Supp 2d 317 (D Del 2009)
C Frontera Res Azer Corp v State Oil Co of the Azer Republic, 582 F3d 393 (2d Cir 2009)
D Telenor Mobile Comm AS v Storm LLC, 351 Fed Appx 467 (2d Cir 2009)
E China National Chartering Corp v Pactrans Air & Sea, Inc, No 06 Civ 13107, 2009 US Dist LEXIS 42782 (SDNY Nov 13, 2009)
F TCo Metals, LLC v Dempsey Pipe & Supply, Inc, 592 F3d 329 (2d Cir 2010)
G Polimaster Ltd v RAE Systems, Inc, 623 F3d 832 (9th Cir 2010)
H Continental Transfert Technique Ltd v Federal Gov't of Nigeria, 697 F Supp 2d 46 (DDC 2010)
I International Trading and Industrial Investment Co v DynCorp Aerospace Technology, 763 F Supp 2d 12 (DDC 2011)
J Argentine Republic v National Grid Plc, 637 F3d 365 (DC Cir 2011)
K DRC, Inc v Honduras, 774 F Supp 2d 66 (DDC 2011)
L Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc v Transfield ER Cape Ltd, 801 F Supp 2d 211 (SDNY 2011)
M Thao-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, 2011 US Dist LEXIS 87844 (SDNY Aug 3, 2011)
N Figueiredo Ferraz e Engenharia de Projeto Ltda v Republic of Peru, Nos 09-3925, 10-1612 (2d Cir Dec 14, 2011)
O The Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran v Cubic Defense Systems, Inc, No CV-98- 01165-RMB (9th Cir Dec 15, 2011)
P Belize Social Development Limited v Government of Belize, No 10-7167, 2012 US App LEXIS 727 (DC Cir Jan 13, 2012)
Q Greatship (India) Limited v Marine Logistics Solutions (Marsol) LLC, No 11 Civ 420, 2012 US Dist LEXIS 8231 (SDNY
Jan 24, 2012)