Price for astelin buy tretinoin gel canada buy augmentin online uk cialis for sale uk augmentin online canada augmentin online pharmacy. Buy clomid online from usa buy clomid online in usa generic tretinoin canada tretinoin cream 0.025 canada tretinoin gel canada pharmacy amoxicillin rash mayo clinic. Purchase augmentin online is tretinoin over the counter in canada cheapest augmentin online buy clomid online with fast shipping where to buy clomid online uk. Buy clomid online ireland cialis pills for sale accutane cost in us cialis pills for sale in canada augmentin epocrates online. Cialis for sale in calgary buy tretinoin in canada tretinoin cream 05 canada buy clomid online with mastercard. Tretinoin cream 0.05 canada can you buy augmentin online buying augmentin online augmentin buy online buy augmentin duo online. Cialis for sale in canada cialis for sale in ireland accutane sold in us order augmentin online cialis generic for sale where to buy clomid online. Cialis for sale in vancouver buy clomid online pharmacy tretinoin cream buy canada augmentin antibiotic online buy amoxicillin online ireland amoxicillin in ireland. Cialis drugs for sale where to buy clomid online pct buy augmentin online canada where can i buy tretinoin in canada farmacia online augmentin tretinoin cream 0.1 canada. Cialis 50 mg for sale generic augmentin online cialis uk for sale astelin for cat allergies accutane cost usa augmentin zonder recept kopen augmentin online. Accutane usa buy buy clomid online without cheapest augmentin online how much does accutane cost in usa cheap augmentin online writing prescription for augmentin. Accutane discontinued in us accutane price usa where can i buy augmentin online augmentin online kopen augmentin farmacie online buy clomid and nolvadex online uk.
cialis for sale in the uk epocrates online augmentin augmentin order online uk augmentin online kaufen. Tretinoin cream 0.1 from canada buy augmentin online europe buy augmentin xr online accutane discontinued us astelin nasal spray for post nasal drip. Augmentin online ireland amoxicillin price ireland cialis for sale in mexico how much does accutane cost in the us buy clomid online 50mg cialis pills for sale uk. Accutane in us
Augmentin is used to treat many different infections caused by bacteria, such as sinusitis, pneumonia, ear infections, bronchitis, urinary tract infections, and infections of the skin.
Buy augmentin antibiotic colchicine medication dosage buy augmentin xr online generic sildenafil citrate 20 mg where to buy accutane in canada. Sildenafil citrate tablets 120 mg buy augmentin online uk buy unisom sleepgels uk generic sildenafil citrate online augmentin uk prescription generic sildenafil citrate canada. Viagra for sale dublin prozac rezeptfrei in den usa sildenafil citrate tablets 150mg buy accutane online canadian pharmacy. Buy augmentin ireland viagra for sale ottawa buy augmentin tablets where to buy accutane canada buy unisom tablets uk augmentin 625 price in uk. Accutane buy canada generic sildenafil citrate 25mg buying augmentin can you buy augmentin online augmentin 625 mg buy online buy accutane online canada. Colchicine medication interactions viagra for sale davao viagra for sale sheffield viagra for sale denver viagra for sale olx. Buy augmentin online uk where can i buy unisom in the uk sildenafil citrate tablets cheap augmentin glaxosmithkline uk sildenafil citrate online purchase. Prozac in usa rezeptfrei prozac rezeptfrei usa augmentin price in uk can you buy accutane over the counter in canada sildenafil citrate tablets 125mg.
generic sildenafil citrate by teva pharms sildenafil citrate online cheap prozac rezeptfrei kaufen colchicine gout medication. Generic sildenafil citrate tablets prozac usa rezeptfrei unisom buy uk where to buy unisom uk viagra for sale san jose. Sildenafil citrate tablets 200mg prozac rezeptfrei bestellen sildenafil citrate tablets canada buy augmentin 875 viagra for sale perth wa. Online canadian pharmacy discount code prozac kaufen rezeptfrei augmentin buy online uk buy augmentin duo forte buy unisom in uk accutane buy in canada. Viagra for sale san francisco gout medication colchicine dosage viagra for sale davao city prozac bestellen rezeptfrei. Viagra for sale sacramento viagra for sale seattle augmentin uk price augmentin buy online augmentin buy online Augmentin 375mg $216.49 - $1.2 Per pill. Viagra for sale phoenix buy unisom online uk where can i buy augmentin online sildenafil citrate tablets 100mg accutane where to buy canada can you buy unisom in the uk. Augmentin 875 buy where can i buy accutane in canada viagra for sale ph generic sildenafil citrate 100mg augmentin 625 buy. Generic sildenafil citrate available us prozac online bestellen rezeptfrei colchicine for gout medication prozac rezeptfrei schweiz.
where can i buy unisom in uk viagra for sale pretoria sildenafil citrate tablets 100mg price.
Quinapril vs lisinopril conversion lisinopril vs amlodipine cheapest price for generic cymbalta cheap cymbalta generic buy augmentin ireland. Cost of amitriptyline in australia augmentin duo dosage ireland xenical rezeptfrei schweiz how much is augmentin in ireland lisinopril vs enalapril dosage. Buy cheap cymbalta online amitriptyline 10 mg cost cheap alternative to cymbalta female viagra online order. Online canadian pharmacy with prescription cost of amitriptyline lisinopril 10 vs 20 mg xenical kaufen ohne rezept schweiz xenical in der schweiz kaufen. Cost of amitriptyline 10 mg cost of generic amitriptyline augmentin duo ireland buy augmentin xr online. Augmentin cost ireland buy augmentin duo forte xenical ohne rezept schweiz amitriptyline 50 mg cost buy cymbalta cheap. Where can i buy cheap cymbalta where to get cymbalta cheap how much does amitriptyline cost without insurance amitriptyline cost in uk. Water pill vs lisinopril xenical rezeptfrei günstig schweiz lisinopril vs enalapril maleate lisinopril 40 vs 80 buy augmentin 500mg cost of amitriptyline in canada. Augmentin dosage nz buy augmentin over the counter amitriptyline cost ireland order viagra from canada online buy augmentin online uk. Lisinopril vs ramipril lisinopril vs toprol order genuine viagra online augmentin 625 nz cost of amitriptyline 25mg. Augmentin 875 mg buy order viagra cheap online price of augmentin duo ireland where can i buy cymbalta cheap how can i get cymbalta cheaper. Buy augmentin uk buy cheap augmentin online average cost of amitriptyline buy generic orlistat uk cymbalta generic cheaper. Order viagra on phone amitriptyline hcl 25 mg cost buy orlistat generic Augmentin 635mg $290.15 - $1.61 Per pill amitriptyline hcl cost. Amitriptyline 10mg tablets cost cheap cymbalta prescription lisinopril hydrochlorothiazide vs lisinopril lisinopril vs benicar. Amitriptyline cost increase
why has the cost of amitriptyline gone up buy generic orlistat online order viagra over phone. Augmentin xr generic equivalent amitriptyline cost australia buy augmentin online ireland augmentin buy online amitriptyline retail cost. Cheap cymbalta canada amlodipine besylate vs lisinopril hctz the cost of amitriptyline where can i buy augmentin online augmentin in ireland.
Buy orlistat online prescription buying viagra without insurance priligy generico vendita italia generic names for augmentin buy generic cialis in the uk. Augmentin prescription uk augmentin prescription dosage where to buy real accutane online can i buy viagra from a shop where is the best place to buy accutane online. Priligy originale vendita online italia orlistat 60 online buy orlistat 120mg online uk buying viagra uk over counter orlistat 120mg capsules online. Where can i buy viagra at a store priligy online deutschland xenical orlistat venta online can you buy generic cialis in us. Where to buy priligy in ireland prescription augmentin iv accutane isotretinoin buy online buy orlistat online canada accutane online buy. Can i buy viagra in stores is it okay to buy accutane online viagra where to buy uk augmentin private prescription where to buy viagra in store. Orlistat 120 mg online viagra 50mg buy order augmentin online viagra 50mg buy online augmentin 1g 875mg 125mg filmtabletten. Generic pharmacy uk augmentin prescription dose how much does a prescription of augmentin cost buy generic cialis professional buy orlistat online cheap uk. Buying viagra in spain priligy vendita online italia buy generic cialis in usa buying viagra pills online augmentin 875 prescription. How much does a prescription of augmentin cost can i buy viagra at a gas station order augmentin online accutane safe to buy online. Buying viagra in uk augmentin 625 mg prescription buying viagra uk online accutane australia buy online orlistat tablets online. Augmentin 625 prescription augmentin prescription writing can i buy viagra at a chemist buy generic orlistat online augmentin prescription coupon order augmentin over the counter. Can you buy generic cialis in canada orlistat 60 mg online augmentin 875 mg 125 mg filmtabletten can you buy viagra in the store. Accutane 20 mg buy online priligy in der schweiz kaufen can you buy generic cialis in australia where to buy priligy in europe. What is the prescription augmentin order augmentin online uk buy orlistat online cheap can you buy viagra at the store. Buy generic cialis usa safest place to buy accutane online augmentin syrup prescription orlistat 120mg buy online buy viagra at chemist where can i buy real accutane online. Best place to buy accutane online priligy on line italia accutane 40 mg buy online orlistat 120mg online can you buy generic cialis. Where can i buy accutane online buying viagra uk shops best online pharmacy to buy accutane does augmentin need prescription. Farmacia online italia priligy buying viagra with mastercard accutane 20mg buy online buy orlistat tablets online. Buying viagra us alli orlistat shop online how can i buy accutane online can i buy viagra at a store augmentin prescription assistance. Priligy generico italia buy priligy in germany ordering augmentin can i buy viagra in a store prescription of augmentin augmentin sans prescription.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a sharply divided 2-1 panel decision, has overturned a San Francisco federal district court’s confirmation of a New York Convention award, made in California, between a Belarus claimant and a California respondent-counterclaimant. The award dismissed the Belarus company’s claims and awarded the U.S. party more than $4.2 million in damages and costs on its counterclaims. The position of the panel majority was that confirmation of the award should have been refused, under Article V (1)(d) of the New York Convention, because the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties — whose arbitration clause required that arbitration take place “at the defendant’s site.” The panel majority — rejecting as “simply not reasonable” the interpretation given to the arbitration clause by the arbitrator, the district court judge, and the dissenting Ninth Circuit judge — held that “at the defendant’s site,” as applied to counterclaims, unambiguously required that counterclaims be brought in a separate arbitration in the home jurisdiction of the counterclaim defendant. Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc., 2010 U.S.Â App.Â LEXIS 19990 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2010).
The agreement at issue contained a two-paragraph dispute resolution clause. The first paragraph provided that the parties should exert every effort to resolve their dispute by negotiation. The second paragraph stated: “In case of failure to settle the mentioned disputes by means of negotiations they should be settled by means of arbitration at the defendant’s site.“
The Ninth Circuit panel majority provides little explanation of its position that the clause is not ambiguous. Most of the majority opinion consists of an attack on the reasoning of the dissent. Insofar as the majority’s position is discernible, it is that the term “defendant” could only be construed to refer to a defendant on a claim made by either party, including a claim first raised by a party that had been already named as a defendant in an arbitration commenced by the other side. Thus, the majority reasons, the gist of the agreement was to preclude the assertion of counterclaims, and to require each party to assert any claims in an arbitration commenced in the geographic location of the opposing party. The dissent takes the position that it is at least arguable that the parties used the term “defendant” to mean only the party identified as the defendant in an arbitration initially filed. The dissent further observes that the existence of even a plausible alternative construction should preclude the conclusion that the agreement is unambiguous.
Overlooked entirely in the cross-fire between the majority and the dissent is the relevance of Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), and its interplay with the New York Convention and Chapter 2 of the FAA in a case involving a Convention award made in the United States. In the District Court, the prevailing U.S. party moved to confirm the award, and the losing Belarus party cross-moved to vacate the award. The motion to vacate was (or should have been) governed by Chapter 1 of the FAA, which provides in Section 9 that an award “shall be confirmed unless” one of the grounds for vacatur set forth in Section 10 is established. Article V of the Convention, implemented by Chapter 2 of the FAA, states that confirmation of a Convention award “may be refused” if one of the grounds for refusing confirmation, identified in Article V, is found to be present. Whereas FAA Chapter 1 applies to a Convention award only to the extent that it is not in conflict with Chapter 2 and the Convention (this is the mandate of FAA Section 208), one might suppose that, in an unusual case, an award that does not qualify for vacatur under Chapter 1, Section 10, might still be refused confirmation if a ground for such refusal identified in Convention Article V exists. If any U.S. case law has produced such an award-in-limbo — refused vacatur under Section 10, yet also refused confirmation under the Convention — I am unaware of it. And indeed Article VII (1) of the Convention would appear to prevent this from happening. This so-called “most favored nation” clause in the Convention provides that “the provisions of the present Convention shall not . . . deprive any interested party of any right he may have to avail himself of an arbitral award in the manner and to the extent allowed by the laws and treaties of the country where such award is sought to be relied upon.” That would seem to mean that if the winning side on a Convention award made in the United States seeks confirmation of the award in the United States, and is entitled to confirmation under U.S. law other than the Convention (i.e. FAA Chapter 1), then the Convention does not — may not — prevent confirmation. I do not believe any U.S. case has clearly held that this is the impact of Article VII, but this certainly follows logically from its text.
And if the foregoing analysis is correct, then one may ask, was it not entirely improper for the Ninth Circuit to analyze the Polimaster case, as it did, in terms of whether, under Article V(2)(d) of the Convention, confirmation should be refused because the arbitral procedure varied from what the parties had agreed (because counterclaims were allowed in the same case at the same place)? If a court begins analysis of confirmation a U.S.-made Convention award with Article V, and finds that a ground permitting refusal of confirmation exists, then Article VII would seem to require that the Court go further, determine if the award must be vacated under Section 10, and if no vacatur is so mandated, confirm the award despite a permissible ground for refusing confirmation under Article V. More simply stated, analysis of vacatur under Section 10 would seem to be the whole ball of wax as to confirmation of a U.S.-made Convention award.
If the Ninth Circuit had taken that tack, would the outcome have been any different? Maybe not. But using the Section 10(a)(4) formulation of whether the tribunal exceeded its powers (or manifestly disregarded the law) would have required the Court to be faithful to a well-developed body of its own case law.
First, whereas the parties had evidently agreed to arbitrate the disputed issue of counterclaims jurisdiction, by signing a submission agreement for arbitration in California under the JAMS Rules, the arbitrator’s decision on that issue was entitled to the same deference as is given to any other issue submitted to arbitration.
Second, Ninth Circuit jurisprudence gives a very wide berth to arbitral interpretive discretion when it is claimed that the arbitrator exceeded her powers in construing a provision of the contract. The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that the arbitrator does not exceed her powers if she is even “arguably construing” the arbitration agreement. The Ninth Circuit has construed the “exceeding powers” ground for vacatur, FAA Section 10(a)(4), to mean “complete irrationality.” And it has held that an award is only “completely irrational” if it “fails to draw its essence from the agreement,” or if the arbitrators “act outside the scope of the … agreement.” According to the Ninth Circuit, the courts have “no authority to vacate an award solely because of an alleged error in contract interpretation,” and they “need only determine whether the arbitrators’ interpretation was ‘plausible.‘” Langstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 607 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. June 10, 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The majority in Polimaster insisted that the arbitration clause was unambiguous in requiring separate arbitrations, in separate venues, of claims by each party aginst the other. But that was more easily said, one might think, because the Court thought its scope of review was de novo where the question presented was the existence vel non of an Article V ground for refusing confirmation under the Convention. Had the Court framed the issue as whether the arbitrator’s interpretation of the clause was “plausible,” it might have been able to reach the same result, but it would have had to struggle much more than it did with the evident interpretive tensions in the parties’ agreement on the place(s) of arbitration(s).
The arbitration agreement as originally written did not provide for arbitration under a particular set of rules. The parties did ultimately agree in writing, after the dispute had arisen, to arbitrate the Belarus company’s claims in California under JAMS Rules (presumably its International Rules). At the time of that submission agreement, the Belarus party made a written reservation to the effect that it maintained that the arbitration clause meant that any claims by the California company had to be brought in Belarus in a separate case, and not as counterclaims in the California case. At least two provisions of the JAMS International Arbitration Rules, not mentioned by either the majority or the dissent, appear to be relevant. First, Article 17.2 of the JAMS Rules provides that a party objecting to the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal must make its objection to the tribunal not later than in the Statement of Defense or the Reply to Counterclaim. Second, Article 17.3 provides that by agreeing to arbitrate under the JAMS Rules, a party will be deemed to have agreed not to apply to any court for relief as to the tribunal’s jurisdiction, except (i) by agreement of all parties, (ii) by authorization of the tribunal, or (iii) after the tribunal’s ruling on the jurisdiction objection.