Marc J. Goldstein Arbitrator & Mediator NYC

Recent Posts

July 07, 2009

U.S. “Public Policy” As Basis to Nullify Arbitration Agreement: Beyond the Bounds of Mitsubishi?

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that an arbitration agreement between a foreign seaman and his U.S. employer, proving for arbitration outside the U.S. under foreign law, was null and void becuase it prospectively waived the seaman’s rights under the federal Seamen’s Wage Act. Thomas v. Carnival Corp., 2009 U. S. App. LEXIS 14406 (11th Cir. July 1, 2009). In Thomas, the court of appeals relied centrally on the much-discussed footnote dictum of the U. S. Supreme Court in Mitsubishi Motor Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U. S. 614 (1985). The Mitsubishi footnote states…
Read More »

July 02, 2009

Judicial Discovery Assistance for Foreign Arbitrations

With at least some United States district courts willing to consider discovery assistance to foreign arbitral tribunals, developments in the law concerning such discovery are of considerable interest. Some recent U. S. cases deserve mention. In Marubeni Am. Corp. v LBA Y.K., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12953 (2d Cir. June 19, 2009), the federal appeals court in New York affirmed a district court’s order granting a request to obtain discovery from a non-party witness, made by a party to litigation pending in Japan. In Marubeni, the party opposing discovery argued that the district court had abused its discretion by granting…
Read More »

June 19, 2009

Arbitration Experience Profile for Marc J. Goldstein

Some readers of these Commentaries may find it useful to have ready access to a profile of my international arbitration experience. I seek to provide that here. Representative International Arbitrations as Arbitrator +ICDR case concerning interests in real estate trust. Parties US, Netherlands, Israel. Chairperson of tribunal. +ICDR case concerning investment banking compensation agreement. Parties US, China. Sole arbitrator. +ICDR case concerning breach of investment management agreement. Parties US, Saudi. Co-arbitrator. +ICDR case concerning breach of industrial machinery contract. Parties: US, Canada Representative International Arbitrations as Counsel + ICDR case in New York re price determination in acquisition agreement. Canadian…
Read More »

June 15, 2009

Supreme Court Not Likely to Consider Manifest Disregard in Class Arbitration Case

The Supreme Court of the United States today granted certiorari to review a decision of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Stolt-Nielsen Transp. Group Ltd. v. Animalfeeds International Corp., 543 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008), in which the Court OF Appeals continued to recognize the existence of “manifest disregard of the law” as a possible basis to set aside an arbitration award, and did so after express consideration of the doubts raised by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 4936. But the question presented for Supreme Court review…
Read More »

June 10, 2009

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the U.S.: A Primer

The following commentary has been prepared for publication in Canada and will shortly be published there in both English and French. However, the discussion of U.S. law in this commentary is certainly not limited to enforcement of awards involving Canadian parties. Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the U.S.: A Primer by Marc J. Goldstein Introduction As Canadian companies, and Canadian arbitrators, participate more often in international arbitrations, they have naturally become eager to know more about enforcement of awards outside Canada, and particularly in the United States. The reasons for this interest in the procedures for award enforcement are…
Read More »

June 10, 2009

Setting Aside New York Convention Awards

Does Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act – the “domestic FAA” – provide the legal standards applicable to a motion to vacate an international arbitration award made in the United States? Just when many arbitration practitioners may have thought the settled answer was “yes,” along has come a new federal district court decision in Virginia taking the opposite view. RZS Holdings AVV v. PDVSA Petroleos, S.A., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47126 (E.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2009). The Court in RZS held that the Chapter 1, Section 10 standards to vacate an award do not apply to a motion to…
Read More »