Recent Posts

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 »

Common law concepts such as agency and estoppel often come into play when arbitral jurisdiction determined under U.S. law. An intriguing recent example is Leff v. Deutsche Bank AG, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41713 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2009). The case arose from the marketing of allegedly abusive tax shelter schemes. Deutsche Bank allegedly assisted a law firm in creating and marketing the schemes, but apparently was unaware that the contract between investors and investment entities provided for arbitration. The investors sued Deutsche Bank for fraud in the federal district court in Chicago. The bank learned of the arbitration clauses…
Read More »

Courts continue to struggle with the question of how to allocate, between judges and arbitrators, power to decide questions of arbitrability (including the existence, vel non, of a valid agreement to arbitrate). The difficulty is acute in international arbitration cases where recognition and enforcement are sought under the New York Convention and its statutory implementing legislation in the U. S. , Chapter Two of the Federal Arbitration Act. A recent case in point is Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 2009 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 39802 (S. D. Fla. May 12, 2009). In this case, the Court…
Read More »

When the arbitration agreement states that each party shall bear its own legal fees, do the arbitrators have authority to award legal fees as a sanction for bad faith conduct in the arbitration? In a recent case in New York, two federal judges said yes, and two said no. But the two votes in favor formed the majority on a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and so that prominent Court has now held, apparently for the first time, that arbitrators do not exceed their powers by awarding fees as a sanction for bad faith conduct in…
Read More »

A U.S. District Court judge in San Francisco recently granted an order of attachment, in aid of enforcement of the award of the ICC tribunal seated in Stockholm. Recognition and enforcement in the U.S. court were therefore governed by the New York Convention and Chapter Two of the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court’s opinion is a useful guide to many of the essential elements of recognition and enforcement of a Convention award in the U.S. federal courts. The case is Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB v. Delta Electronics (Thailand) Public Company Limited, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36497 (N.D. Cal. April…
Read More »

Federal district courts have ample power to dissolve a stay of proceedings pending arbitration, and order the parties to proceed with the litigation, where the party that initially invoked arbitration thereafter acts systematically to prevent the arbitration from taking place. A recent federal district court decision makes these powers clear. In Apple & Eve, LLC v. Yantai North Andre Juice Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32548 (E.D.N.Y. April 27, 2009), the defendant was a commercial entity domiciled in the People’s Republic of China. After plaintiff commenced suit in a New York State Court, defendant removed the action to federal court…
Read More »