UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-cv-23235

Banco de los Trabajadores, 

Petitioner,

v. 

DHK Finance, Inc.,

Respondent. 

/ 

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRAL AWARD

Banco de los Trabajadores (“Bantrab”) respectfully submits this Petition to confirm the 

international Final Award, dated August 5, 2022 (the “Award”), issued in its favor pursuant to 

the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, January 30, 1975, 

O.A.S.T.S. No. 42, 1438 U.N.T.S. 245 (the “Inter-American Convention”). 

INTRODUCTION

DHK Finance, Inc. (“DHK”), a Panamanian company, initiated an arbitration in Miami, 

Florida, against Bantrab, a Guatemalan bank, claiming almost $400,000,000.00 in damages.

According to DHK, Bantrab breached its contractual obligations under a share certificate issued 

to DHK in Guatemala. But DHK’s purported right to arbitrate did not emanate from that share 

certificate. Instead, DHK traveled under an arbitration clause in a questionable contract currently 

under scrutiny by the Guatemalan authorities. 

DHK resurrected this controversial contract to avoid the proper adjudication of its claims 

in Guatemala. It was well aware that since 2016 its shares have been subject to a freeze order 

Case 1:22-cv-23235-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 1 of 11
2 

issued by a Guatemalan court1 that prohibited Bantrab from taking any action related to DHK’s 

shares. The arbitrator ultimately saw past DHK’s attempt to evade Guatemalan law and issued 

the Award disposing of all claims in favor of Bantrab, finding that Bantrab did not breach any of 

its contractual obligations to DHK, and that Bantrab was not unjustly enriched. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This Petition is brought under the Inter-American Convention, incorporated into 

the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) at 9 U.S.C. §§ 301-308, to confirm a final arbitral award. 

2. This Petition is submitted under Chapter 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act 

(“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 301 –307, which provides for the enforcement of the Inter-American 

Convention over the New York Convention2 when “a majority of the parties to the arbitration 

agreement are citizens of a State or States that have ratified or acceded to the Inter-American 

Convention and are member States of the Organization of American States.” See 9 U.S.C. § 305. 

3. The United States, Panama, and Guatemala are signatories to the Inter-American 

Convention and the New York Convention (together, the “Conventions”). See OAS, InterAmerican Treaties, https://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/b-35.html. 

4. Section 302 of the FAA provides that “[s]ections 202, 203, 204, 205, and 207 of 

this title [those referring to the New York Convention] shall apply to this chapter as if 

specifically set forth herein, except that for the purposes of this chapter “the

Convention” shall mean the Inter-American Convention.” 9 U.S.C. § 302. In other words, the 

Inter-American Convention will apply the abovementioned provisions of the New York 

Convention without distinction. E.g., PDV Sweeny, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2015 WL 

1 Orden de Secuestro, Embargo y Suspensión de Derechos de Propiedad del Juzgado de 

Extinción de Dominio (the “Freeze Order”). 2 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 

(the “New York Convention”), June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 38. 

Case 1:22-cv-23235-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 2 of 11
3 

5144023, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 1, 2015) (“This is not particularly consequential, as the Inter– 

American Convention is substantively identical to the New York Convention and applies 

concomitantly in this case.”); Gerson v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., 2012 WL 3962374, at *3 

(S.D. Fla. Sep. 10, 2012) (“9 U.S.C. §305(1) (2012), and the commercial relationship at issue in 

the arbitration is not “a relationship which is entirely between citizens of the United States.” Id. § 

202 (incorporated by reference to apply to the Panama Convention in 9 U.S.C. § 302).”). 

Accordingly, all references to the present Petition will also be to the relevant sections under 

Chapter 2 of the FAA and to the New York Convention.3

5. Confirmation of an arbitral award under the Inter-American Convention is a 

summary proceeding. E.g., Empresa De Telecommunicaciones De Bogota, S.A. E.S.P. v. 

Mercury Telco Grp., Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 1361 (S.D. Fla. 2009). The court need only find 

that the arbitral award is made in a nation that is signatory to the Interamerican Convention. 9 

U.S.C. § 304. 

6. That requirement is easily met here. The Award is a final, non-domestic

international commercial arbitration award issued on August 5, 2022 after an arbitration 

proceeding held in Miami, Florida, under the International Centre for Dispute Resolution 

(“ICDR”) Rules, and administered by the American Association of Arbitration (“AAA”). The 

Award was made in the United States, a signatory to the Inter-American Convention, and the 

parties are citizens of Panama and Guatemala, also signatories to the Inter-American Convention. 

7. The Award was rendered in favor of Bantrab finding that Bantrab had not 

breached its contractual obligations to DHK arising out of its preferred stock in Bantrab and that 

3 The Inter-American Convention and New York Convention are identical for all relevant purposes, 

notably, 9 U.S.C § 302 (addressing the Inter-American Convention) expressly incorporates by 

reference 9 U.S.C. §§ 202-207, which governs enforcement under the New York Convention. See 

Empresa Constructora Contex Limitada v. Iseki, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1024 (S.D. Cal. 2000). 

Case 1:22-cv-23235-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 3 of 11
4 

it was not unjustly enriched. A certified copy of the Award in Spanish is attached as Exhibit A, 

as well as an English translation of the same document.

4

 

PARTIES

8. Bantrab is a company incorporated under the laws of Guatemala with its principal 

place of business in Guatemala City, Guatemala. 

9. DHK is a company incorporated under the laws of Panama with its principal place 

of business in Panama City, Panama. 

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §§ 

202, 203, and 302 as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

11. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §§ 204, 301 and 302. A 

petition to confirm an arbitration award under the Inter-American Convention “may be brought 

in any such court in which save for the arbitration agreement an action or proceeding with 

respect to the controversy between the parties could be brought....” 9 U.S.C. §§ 204, 302; see 

Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Halbert Constr. Co., 529 U.S. 193, 195, 202 (2000) (holding that 

the venue provisions in the FAA, including section 204, are permissive; thus allowing a petition 

to confirm an award in any district proper under the general venue statute [28 U.S.C.A. § 1391]). 

Venue is proper under section 1391(b)(3) and of the United States Code because this Court has 

personal jurisdiction over DHK. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) (“any judicial district in which any 

defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.”). 

4 Despite several conferral attempts, Bantrab was not able to obtain DHK’s position regarding the 

confidentiality of the Award before the filing of this petition. In an abundance of caution, 

Bantrab is filing the Award under seal and redacting quoted portions of the Award from the 

petition. It is Bantrab’s position that the information is not confidential. Concurrent with this 

petition Bantrab will file a motion for leave to file Exhibit A under seal.

Case 1:22-cv-23235-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 4 of 11
5 

12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over DHK based on its consent to jurisdiction 

in Florida and under Fla. Stat. § 684.0049 because DHK initiated the arbitration proceeding 

against Bantrab in Florida and the Award was issued in Florida.5 

FACTS

13. On May 14, 2012, unbeknownst to Bantrab, three of its officers and a 

representative of DHK entered into an Agreement of Understanding whereby, among several 

questionable terms including bribes to the three officers, DHK would purchase $20,000,000.00 

in Bantrab’s stock. A copy of the Agreement of Understanding in Spanish is attached as Exhibit 

B, as well as an English translation of the same document.

14. Clause 5 of the Agreement of Understanding contains the following arbitration 

clause: 

CLAUSE 5: Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of, related to or in 

connection with this agreement, including but not limited to all questions of 

jurisdiction, existence, scope, validity, performance, interpretation, termination, the 

rights and the division of all reasonable costs and attorney's fees of the prevailing 

party, amendment, or breach of same, shall be determined by arbitration before a 

single arbitrator who shall rule and interpret by the laws of the State of Florida, (the 

situs of the hearings shall be in Florida) and shall be administered by the 

lnternational Centre for Dispute Resolution in accordance with its International 

Commercial Arbitration Rules, which are deemed to be incorporated by reference 

in this agreement. If any provision of this arbitration agreement or the application 

thereof to any person or circumstance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not 

affect other provisions or applications of this agreement, and the judgment on the 

award issued by the arbitrator(s) may be registered in any court that has jurisdiction 

over same.

15. On August 9, 2013, Bantrab issued 16,655,000 shares to DHK in exchange for 

$20,000,000.00. These shares were represented in a certificate that established all the terms and 

conditions previously accepted by the parties. 

5

 To the extent necessary, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) would provide an alternative basis for personal 

jurisdiction. 

Case 1:22-cv-23235-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-23235-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-23235-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 7 of 11
8 

APPLICABLE LAW

23. Chapters 2 and 3 of the FAA incorporate into U.S. law the Inter-American

Convention and the New York Convention. 

24. Under 9 U.S.C. § 207, any party to an arbitration proceeding may seek 

confirmation and enforcement of the arbitral award within three years after the award was made. 

Given that the Award was made on August 5, 2022 this Petition is timely.

25. “The goal of the Convention, and the principal purpose underlying American 

adoption and implementation of it, was to encourage the recognition and enforcement of 

commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts and to unify the standards by which 

agreements to arbitrate are observed and arbitral awards are enforced in the signatory countries.” 

Sherk v. Alberto-Culver, 417 U.S. 506, 520 n.15 (1974). “The Convention, and American 

enforcement of it through the FAA, ‘provide[s] businesses with a widely used system through 

which to obtain domestic enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards resolving 

contract and other transactional disputes, subject only to minimal standards of domestic judicial 

review for basic fairness and consistency with national public policy.’” Indus. Risk Insurers v. 

M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshutte GmbH, 141 F.3d 1434, 1440 (11th Cir. 1998). 

26. Federal courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have long recognized a “general 

pro-enforcement bias” informing the Inter-American and New York Conventions. See, e.g., id.

(recognizing that the intent of the U.S. in adopting the New York Convention was to “encourage 

the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards” (quotation marks omitted)); see 

also Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale de L’Industrie du Papier

(RAKTA), 508 F.2d 969, 973 (2d Cir. 1974). 

Case 1:22-cv-23235-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 8 of 11
9 

27. Under the Court’s “pro-enforcement bias” the party opposing confirmation or 

enforcement of an arbitral award bears the burden of establishing one of seven exceptions. Indus. 

Risk Insurers, 141 F.3d at 1442. Further, the party opposing confirmation of the award must 

make “a convincing showing” that one of these narrow seven exceptions applies, or the award is 

confirmed. In re Trans Chem. Ltd. & China Nat’l Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp., 978 F. Supp. 266, 

309 (S.D. Tex. 1997). 

28. The Award is final and binding. 

29. The Award has not been set aside. 

30. Here, none of the seven exceptions specified in the Inter-American Convention 

for refusal of recognition or enforcement of the Award exist. First, neither party was under any

incapacity, and the parties’ agreement to arbitrate was found by the Tribunal to be valid. Second, 

DHK was given proper notice of the arbitration and was permitted ample opportunity to present 

their case. Third, the Award is limited in scope only to those issues raised by the parties and 

properly subject to arbitration under the terms of the parties’ arbitration clause. Fourth, the 

composition of the Tribunal was in accordance with the contract between the parties. Fifth, the 

Award became binding on the parties immediately when issued. Sixth, the subject matter of the 

parties’ dispute is capable of settlement by arbitration. Seventh, recognition and enforcement of 

the Award is aligned with public policy in the U.S., which favors honoring parties’ contractual 

agreements, and would not be contrary to any “explicit public policy” that is “well-defined and 

dominant ... [and is] ascertained ‘by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from 

general consideration of supposed public interests.’” Indus. Risk Insurers, 141 F.3d at 1445. 

31. The confirmation of a foreign arbitral award under the Inter-American

Convention is a summary procedure. See Empresa De Telecomunicaciones De Bogota, 670 F. 

Supp. at 1361; Booth v. Hume Publ’g. Inc., 902 F.2d 925, 932 (11th Cir. 1990) (finding that 

Case 1:22-cv-23235-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 9 of 11
10 

under the FAA “the district court need not conduct a full hearing on a motion to vacate or 

confirm; such motions may be decided on the papers without oral testimony”); Imperial 

Ethiopian Gov’t v. Baruch-Foster Corp., 535 F.2d 334, 335 (5th Cir. 1976) (noting the New 

York Convention “prescribed a summary procedure in the nature of federal motion practice to 

expedite petitions for confirmation of foreign arbitral awards”).

32. In light of the above, the Award should be recognized and confirmed in all 

respects pursuant to the Inter-American Convention and the New York Convention. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Bantrab respectfully requests that this Court 

a. Enter an order confirming the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal, as authorized 

by 9 U.S.C. §§ 207, 302; 

b. Enter a judgment that confirms the Award; 

c. Award Bantrab its costs in bringing this action, pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

d. Retain jurisdiction over this matter through the entry of any judgment and 

issue any and all orders necessary for Bantrab to enforce this judgment; and

e. Grant any such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

Dated: October 5, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 By: s/Amanda McGovern 

AMANDA MCGOVERN

Florida Bar No. 964263 

JORGE A. MESTRE

Florida Bar No. 88145 

ANA MALAVE 

Florida Bar No. 83839 

SYLMARIE TRUJILLO

Florida Bar No. 112768

Case 1:22-cv-23235-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 10 of 11
11 

RIVERO MESTRE LLP

 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000 

 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

 Telephone: (305) 445-2500 

 Facsimile: (305) 445-2505 

 E-mail: amcgovern@riveromestre.com 

 E-mail: jmestre@riveromestre.com

E-mail: amalave@riveromestre.com

E-mail: strujillo@riveromestre.com

E-mail: receptionist@riveromestre.com

 

Case 1:22-cv-23235-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 11 of 11