Is Generic Cialis As Good As The Real Thing || Guaranteed top quality products



Buy zovirax cream is zyban prescribed in uk zyban for depression uk can you buy zovirax over the counter in the uk can you buy zovirax cream over the counter. Generic cialis sale can you buy zovirax online can i buy zovirax over the counter in canada buy zovirax pills can i buy zovirax over the counter can i buy prozac in mexico. Buy viagra cialis levitra online uk where to buy cialis in shenzhen where can i buy generic cialis online. Cialis where to buy uk can i get zyban in the uk where to buy cialis in san francisco online pharmacy uk valium where to buy cialis in los angeles zyban as antidepressant in uk. How much does zyban cost uk buy cialis 2.5 mg online buy diovan online cheap Cheap drugstore matte lipstick vivanza preise schweiz can u buy zovirax cream over the counter. Zyban dosage uk vivanza kaufen schweiz hoodia p57 price how buy cialis online buy zovirax 5 cream online. Zyban available uk vivanza 20mg preis schweiz cost of prozac in mexico where to buy cialis in beijing buy acyclovir zovirax hoodia desert lodge price buy cialis online next day delivery. Buy genuine cialis online where to buy cialis in the uk diovan online cheap buy zovirax ointment over the counter can you buy prozac in mexico. Zyban uk depression diovan hct buy online can you buy zovirax eye ointment over the counter buy diovan hct online buy generic cialis online in usa. Diovan online pharmacy prozac generico en mexico zyban in the uk zyban in uk cialis buy online canada zyban for sale in the uk. Can you buy zovirax over the counter in australia buy cialis online from uk buy generic diovan hct online hoodia pills price vivanza preis schweiz. Hoodia desert lodge price cialis buy online generic cialis where to buy buy diovan online buy cialis 20mg online hoodia pills price buy cialis 60 mg online. Buy zovirax ointment online buy online zovirax cream buy cialis 40 mg online can i buy zovirax online buy cialis online uk zyban uk prescription. Buy cialis online cheap uk where to buy zovirax online buy cialis online france buy zovirax ointment hoodia diet pills price buy cialis 5mg online australia. Can you buy zovirax over the counter is zyban available in the uk is there a generic cialis or viagra where can i buy genuine cialis hoodia p57 price. Buy zovirax cold sore cream online buy diovan online canada.

KennewickCialis RanisNew LexingtonWesttownWorcesterWilliamsCialis Blue BellBlufftonNicholasville


Cialis 40 Pills 50mg $220 - $5.5 Per pill



Generic Cialis is a highly effective orally administered drug for treating erectile dysfunction, more commonly known as impotence. Recommended for use as needed, Cialis can also be used as a daily medication.

  1. Nolvadex buy australia
  2. Can you actually buy viagra online
  3. Zovirax cold sore cream 2g tube
  4. Nizagara 100 for sale
  5. Buy viagra pharmacy ireland


GoulburnWilunaSwan HillPerthThompson-Nicola
BurnieTom PricePalmerstonGreater VancouverMandurah
DesertAlturasDissen am Teutoburger WaldRinconGrand Blanc


Amitriptyline for pain nhs amitriptyline for head pain amitriptyline for nerve pain lower back amitriptyline hcl dosage for cats. Generic cialis canada cialis o viagra genericos amitriptyline for nerve pain shingles is duloxetine more effective than amitriptyline for painful diabetic neuropathy. Amitriptyline for pain relief 10mg cialis viagra generico amitriptyline for cats dosage gabapentin or amitriptyline for painful diabetic neuropathy. How much is viagra in uk generika cialis kaufen cialis generika günstig kaufen how much are viagra pills uk cialis 40 mg generika kaufen. How much is viagra on prescription in the uk levitra als generika Canadian pharmacy viagra uk drug interactions for amitriptyline amitriptyline for pain fibromyalgia amitriptyline hcl 25 mg for pain. cialis low cost generic Canada drug price regulation amitriptyline for back pain uk how much is viagra on uk prescription. Amitriptyline for migraines dose generic cialis cheap amitriptyline hcl 50 mg for sleep levitra generika gefährlich amitriptyline for pain 10mg amitriptyline hydrochloride 10mg for nerve pain. Can amitriptyline be used for high blood pressure how does amitriptyline work for chronic pain amitriptyline used for pain control. Dose of amitriptyline for peripheral neuropathy amitriptyline for facet joint pain how much should viagra cost uk. Buy lasix australia amitriptyline dose for tinnitus amitriptyline for tooth pain amitriptyline hcl 10mg for back pain cialis generika sicher online kaufen. Should you buy cialis online amitriptyline dosage for peripheral neuropathy generic cialis online amitriptyline 10mg tablets for pain. Amitriptyline used for neuropathic pain amitriptyline dose for migraine prevention amitriptyline vs nortriptyline for nerve pain. Amitriptyline 25 mg for pain relief elavil amitriptyline for pain dose of amitriptyline for neuropathic pain amitriptyline for chronic nerve pain. Buy cialis online overnight delivery amitriptyline 10mg for bladder pain amitriptyline for neuropathy dosage amitriptyline uses for pain. Amitriptyline for shingles pain amitriptyline for chronic pelvic pain how much does viagra cost in the uk.

  • Cialis in Elk grove
  • Cialis in Broken hill


Can i buy amoxicillin online uk buy amoxicillin 250 mg online uk buy amoxicillin online next day delivery uk. Where to buy cialis sydney i want to buy viagra from canada buy amoxicillin 500mg online uk cialis online bestellen preisvergleich can you buy viagra from canada. Can i get amoxicillin over the counter uk where to buy amoxicillin online uk terramycin ointment over the counter where to buy viagra over the counter canada. Where to buy viagra in canada online can i buy viagra over the counter canada cialis online bestellen eu. Robaxin injection cost dove comprare proscar online cost of generic robaxin amoxicillin otc uk cialis online bestellen wo. Purchase amoxicillin online uk donde comprar proscar online where do i buy viagra in canada non prescription amoxicillin uk how much does generic cialis cost. Cheap cialis 20mg pills amoxicillin buy online uk buy amoxicillin online uk cialis online bestellen deutschland cheap cialis canada pharmacy. Generic cialis online cheap cheap silagra 100 mg robaxin price where can i buy viagra over the counter in canada cheap silagra uk robaxin cost. Where can i buy viagra in canada generic cialis online europe proscar 5 mg comprar lowest cost generic cialis. Can you buy amoxicillin over the counter uk robaxin 750 cost buy viagra cialis canada buy cheap amoxicillin uk. Cialis online bestellen seriös robaxin injection price cialis online bestellen per nachnahme where can you buy viagra over the counter in canada. How can i buy viagra in canada buy amoxicillin antibiotic online uk generic cialis online overnight cialis online bestellen erfahrungen. Cheap silagra tablets amoxicillin over the counter alternative uk order cheap cialis online robaxin 750 mg cost generic cialis online pharmacy cheapest silagra. Buy amoxicillin antibiotics online uk cheap cialis 5mg can you buy viagra off the shelf in canada can i buy viagra from canada. Cheap amoxicillin uk robaxin price per pill to buy viagra in canada buy viagra from canadian pharmacy buy antibiotics amoxicillin online uk does amoxicillin need prescription uk. Cheap cialis 20mg australia cheap cialis 20 mg amoxicillin need prescription uk cheap cialis online with prescription donde comprar proscar en madrid. Where to buy viagra in vancouver canada can you buy viagra over the counter canada amoxicillin over the counter in uk.

  1. generic for viagra or cialis
  2. is there a generic for viagra or cialis
  3. cheapest generic viagra and cialis
  4. lowest cost generic cialis
  5. generic cialis sale
  6. best deals on generic cialis


Buy clomid and nolvadex uk Viagra uk buy cheap Where to buy viagra spain Tretinoin retin-a over the counter


Price of suhagra tablet in india cialis original ohne rezept bestellen protonix price xenical nz price protonix best price price of protonix 40 mg cheap cialis in nz. Cialis 5mg rezeptfrei bestellen protonix generic price Qual o nome generico de lasix viagra pills for sale nz where to buy xenical in nz. Protonix cost at walgreens xenical nz online viagra pills for sale in canada apcalis oral jelly generic cialis. Suhagra price list cialis generikum bestellen viagra generic sale suhagra 100 mg price india buy cialis online in nz protonix cost walgreens. Cialis generika ohne rezept bestellen viagra for sale au cialis ohne rezept bestellen protonix 40 mg best price cialis generika bestellen cialis auf rechnung bestellen. Viagra for sale in uk cheap protonix 40 mg cost protonix price comparison suhagra tablet price in mumbai buy cialis online nz cialis generika bestellen ohne rezept. Cialis generika bestellen ohne kreditkarte where can i buy xenical in nz cost of protonix cymbalta rezeptfrei bestellen generic cialis kopen in belgie. Online pharmacy degree programs uk cheap cialis new zealand viagra for sale in melbourne where to buy cialis nz viagra pills for sale uk protonix drug cost. Cialis bestellen per rechnung protonix cost with insurance suhagra 50 price in india where to buy xenical nz. Protonix price usa suhagra cipla price cialis billiger bestellen suhagra 50 price in india cialis günstig online bestellen. Cheap cialis nz protonix price cvs viagra jelly for sale in the uk Is generic cialis as good as the real thing cialis generika bestellen ohne zollprobleme protonix generic price suhagra 25 mg price in india. Protonix cost walmart suhagra 100 price in india protonix prescription price suhagra price list protonix vs nexium cost protonix generic cost.

  1. online pharmacy uk retin-a
  2. online pharmacy uk legislation
  3. generic pharmacy uk
  4. is there a generic cialis or viagra
  5. online pharmacy uk sildenafil
  6. how much does generic cialis cost
  7. pharmacy online uk cialis
  8. online pharmacy uk antibiotics
  9. generic for viagra or cialis
  10. lowest cost generic cialis
  11. online pharmacy courses uk


< Is tretinoin a generic :: Can you buy nolvadex in canada >

February 05, 2018

US Declaratory Judgments and the New York Convention

In a recent New York Convention award enforceability case in the federal district court in Washington D.C., the Court held that the interim Award of an Emergency Arbitrator in a Singapore-seated arbitration, to the extent it enjoined a party to the arbitration from speaking publicly or to American government authorities about the matters in dispute, was not subject to denial of recognition and enforcement in the United States under Article V(2)(b) of the Convention on the basis of its alleged conflict with the First Amendment of the US Constitution as an embodiment of fundamental US public policy. (Sharp Corp. v. Hisense USA Corp., 2017 WL 5448805 (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2017), appeal filed, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Nov. 16, 2017)). This post does not concern that ultimate holding. Instead, it examines the Court’s foundational determination that FAA Chapter 2, implementing the New York Convention, provided subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the Award loser’s petition based on the Declaratory Judgment Act for a declaration of the non-enforceability of the “gag order” portion of the Singapore Emergency Arbitrator’s Award in a case where the Award winner did not cross-move or separately move for US recognition and enforcement of that Award.

Hisense, the Award winner, was Sharp’s licensee for the manufacture and distribution of Sharp-branded televisions in the US market. The Singapore arbitration, evidently ongoing, concerns a dispute over license termination, and the Emergency Arbitrator made an essentially two-pronged ruling, directing, firstly, that Sharp should continue Hisense’s license in effect during the arbitration, and, secondly, that Sharp should refrain from disparagement of Hisense and more generally from discussing Hisense’s performance as licensee with the market participants or government authorities. The second ruling, the so-called “gag order,” was the subject of Sharp’s declaratory action to declare the unenforceability of the gag order in the United States. Hisense responded, inter alia, with a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and took the position that FAA Chapter 2 did not confer jurisdiction over the case.

The decision on subject-matter jurisdiction attracts the attention of this commentator because there is evidently no authoritative precedent for US courts to invoke FAA Chapter 2 to consider granting this type of relief, and there appear to be reasons in the underlying philosophy of the Convention, not to mention its text and the text of FAA Chapter 2, to suppose that the Convention is understood internationally to be invocable at the election of Award winners seeking recognition and enforcement, and not invocable at the election of Award losers seeking pre-emptive determinations against recognition in the Courts of Contracting States other than the seat of the arbitration.

In support of the motion to dismiss, Hisense’s counsel evidently found rather little in the way of directly apposite precedent, and elected not to submit a broader discussion in its brief of the history and philosophy of the New York Convention.  Hisense also did not take up the theme, that might have been sounded, that FAA Chapter 2 unlike other federal statutes that provide private civil remedies, trumps the Declaratory Judgment Act because it specifically forecloses the type of declaration sought by Sharp here. Hisense’s main theme, instead, was that a declaratory relief application was like a motion to vacate the award, and therefore was barred because the US court had no jurisdiction to vacate an award made in Singapore under Singapore procedural law. This framework evidently led the District Court to analyze the issue as it was presented, i.e. in terms of whether and to what extent this application was or was not equivalent to a motion to vacate the Award. Arguably that was not the proper framework, as the ensuing discussion seeks to show.

Hisense cited a Southern District of New York case in which the Court, while accepting FAA Chapter 2 jurisdiction through removal under Section 205, observed that the request in the state court complaint for a declaration that the Award was unenforceable was the equivalent of a motion to vacate the Award. But in that case the Award had been made in the United States, so Convention/Chapter 2 jurisdiction to vacate the Award was perfectly proper. (Kolel, 863 F. Supp.2d 351). The District Court in Sharp v. Hisense distinguished Kolel on the basis that it involved a motion to invalidate the entire Award rather than only a portion of it.  But isn’t the relevant distinction simply that when the Award is made at a US seat, an application framed as being for declaratory relief that the Award is invalid is not different in legal terms from an FAA-sanctioned motion to vacate the Award?

Hisense also cited, as authority that there is no Convention/Chapter 2 jurisdiction for a declaration of partial unenforceability in the US, a District Court case in which the Award loser in a domestic arbitration had coupled a time-barred FAA motion to vacate with a request for a declaratory judgment seeking as judicial relief the commercial outcome rejected in the Award. (Stedman, 2007 WL 1040367). The District Court held that the declaratory claim was merely a different way to state the claim to vacate the Award, and was equally time-barred. But the fact that declaratory relief and a motion to vacate have the same legal effect, and face the same legal constraints, when the Court has FAA jurisdiction to vacate, does not make it appropriate to characterize a claim for declaratory relief as an impermissible motion to vacate when the Court has no jurisdiction to vacate. All that the Court in Sharp v. Hisense could really take away from Stedman is that the analogy between vacatur and a declaratory judgment of non-recognition/non-enforceability breaks down when the Court has no jurisdiction to vacate.

But a third case relied upon by Hisense was not so readily distinguishable. In that case, the plaintiff, having been the Award loser in an arbitration in Ireland, commenced suit in Chicago seeking “‘a declaration that the Awards issued by the arbitrator are invalid and not enforceable….’” The federal district court judge  held that “the Convention does not empower us to enter such an order, which would be akin to setting aside or vacating the Awards.” (Gemini Consulting Group v. Horan Keogan Ryan Ltd., No. 06 C 3032, unpublished Memorandum Opinion, US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, May 30, 2007). In the Gemini Court’s view, the fact that the Award loser was being “proactive not reactive” was dispositive because the text of the Convention and FAA Chapter 2 appeared to envision the assertion of the defenses in Article V of the Convention only in response to the Award winner’s application for recognition and enforcement. The mere fact that the movant was “contesting” enforceability of a foreign award did not, in the Gemini Court’s opinion, bring its declaratory relief complaint within the Court’s jurisdiction under the Convention.

The Court in Sharp v. Hisense however saw a distinction: that the Gemini declaratory claim sought to declare the Ireland-made Awards “[in]valid worldwide,” (as characterized by the Sharp v. Hisense Court) whereas Sharp sought “to determine only whether the Emergency Order is enforceable in the United States.” But that is not a faithful account of Gemini; the Gemini Court’s opinion reflects that the movant did not seek a global injunction against enforcement of the Award and indeed expressly disclaimed that it was seeking an anti-suit injunction.  Gemini held that a US District Court could not declare a foreign award unenforceable under the Declaratory Judgment Act because its authority under the Convention/Chapter 2 is confined to “enforcing or refusing to enforce the Awards.” Stated differently, Gemini supports the view that FAA Chapter 2 is a jurisdiction-conferring federal statute that makes declaratory relief unavailable, and that the Declaratory Judgment Act, as the more general of the two federal statutes, cannot overcome the specific mandate in the FAA that it should be invoked in regard to recognition and enforcement of an Award,  other than at the seat, only by the Award winner seeking confirmation.  This latter feature seems to be what sets FAA Chapter 2 apart from the run-of-the-mill declaratory relief scenario, as there are few if any federal statutory private causes of action (or common law claims) where the statute (or the common law) provides expressly or by implication that the allegedly injured party shall be the plaintiff and the putative defendant may not initiate suit to establish non-liability.

The District Court in Sharp v. Hisense cited no precedent directly holding that the Convention in tandem with the Declaratory Judgment Act confers subject-matter jurisdiction of an Award loser’s petition to declare the US unforceability of a foreign award. Instead, the Court cited a 2013 decision of a US District Court, in which the Court granted declaratory and injunctive relief to declare the non-existence of any agreement between the parties for international arbitration under the ICC Rules and to enjoin the arbitration Claimant from proceeding against the injunction movant.  (Hospira, Inc. v. Therabel Pharma N.V., 2013 WL 3811488 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2013)).  But the Declaratory Judgment Act was not a necessary element of the movant’s application in Hospira. The FAA would have sufficed. There was (and is) considerable federal appellate authority under the FAA that judicial power to enjoin arbitration, where no arbitration agreement exists, is an implicit corrollary of  the FAA’s grants of power to compel arbitration, under both Chapters 1 and 2. Also, in regard to the existence of a justiciable case-or-controversy, the Constitutional quid pro quo for a declaratory action, the existence of an ongoing ICC case that the arbitration Claimant was actively prosecuting against the movant would appear to confer on the declaratory relief action the necessary elements of a live case-or-controversy. But that scenario is quite different from what was presented in Hisense, i.e. an Emergency Arbitrator Award that the Award winner was not seeking to have recognized and enforced in the United States. Arguably, the case-or-controversy point should make it unnecessary for courts to reach the question, posed in the preceding paragraph, of whether FAA Chapter 2 and the Convention by their terms foreclose a declaratory action for non-recognition/non-enforcement. If the Award winner in such a case cross-moves for recognition and enforcement, the question is moot; if the Award winner does not so move, then shouldn’t there be a finding of no case-or-controversy?

The Hisense decision, as to FAA Chapter 2 subject-matter jurisdiction, does not come to terms with a key underlying premise the Convention, which is to ensure the international portability of a Convention Award. That is to say, the Convention envisions that an Award winner might take the Award for enforcement to several different jurisdictions, and that refusal of recognition in one jurisdiction will not preclude recognition in another, save as the Award may have been vacated by a court of the State in which or under the law of which the Award is made, in which case the Convention permits but does not require refusal of recognition and enforcement. If a US Court refused enforcement on the basis that the Tribunal decided issues outside the mandate of the arbitration agreement, a Canadian court in a subsequent enforcement proceeding might be persuaded or not by the US Court’s view. but in all events it would determine the scope issue de novo. The Convention’s architecture, however, appears to envision that the Award winner will need to persuade the court in Country B to reject the reasoning behind a Country A court’s refusal of recognition and enforcement only if the Award winner had earlier submitted the Award to the Country A court for recognition and enforcement. The marriage of the Convention with the Declaratory Judgment Act as envisioned by the District Court in Hisense allows the Award loser to obtain a US judicial view on enforceability when the Award winner may have no interest in obtaining US recognition, and the Award winner may indeed consider that a US decision amounting to an advisory opinion on recognition and enforcement might be an impediment to recognition elsewhere.  When US courts are confronted in future cases with the same subject-matter jurisdiction issue as was presented in Sharp v. Hisense, they may perhaps devote more systematic attention to this question and more fully explore both the international framework for recognition and enforcement that the Convention provides, and the material difference that arguably exists between the Declaratory Judgment Act, on the one hand,  and the FAA as compared to federal statutory civil causes of action generally, on the other.