Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-international-arbitration?article_sidebar=1
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 07:11:28+00:00

Document:
NEW YORK — A Canadian entity on April 17 filed a petition in a New York federal court, seeking confirmation of a $10,924,300 international arbitration award issued in its favor and against Iraq’s Ministry of Oil (OGI Group Corporation v. Oil Projects Company of The Ministry of Oil, Baghdad, Iraq [SCOP], No. 1:19cv3432, S.D. N.Y.).
MOBILE, Ala. — An Alabama federal judge on April 18 adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that after the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ recent reversal of an order compelling claims against a French company to arbitration in Germany, the case be remanded to state court, finding that the company’s challenges to the appeals court’s findings of fact were frivolous (Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC, et al. v. Converteam SAS, a foreign corporation now known as GE Energy Conversion France SAS, Corp., No. 16-00378, S.D. Ala., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66097).
SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge on April 16 refused to dismiss an Indian multimedia company’s petition to confirm a $562.5 million arbitration award issued in its favor, but stayed the case pending the outcome of the other party’s challenge to the award in Indian courts (Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 18-1360, W.D. Wash.).
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — A Ukrainian oil company on April 16 announced that a tribunal for the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) recently awarded it $44,455,012 in damages for the Russian Federation’s expropriation of its investments in petrol stations in Crimea (PJSC Ukrnafta v. The Russian Federation, No. 2015-34, PCA).
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Chevron Corp. on April 15 announced that the Supreme Court of the Netherlands denied a request filed by the Republic of Ecuador to annul international arbitration awards in which a tribunal held that a $9.5 billion Ecuadorian decision violated Chevron’s rights and should not be enforced anywhere.
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on April 10 granted a company's petition to confirm an international arbitration award issued against two Indian entities in a trademark license agreement dispute, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers and that none of the grounds for vacating the award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applied (Jolen, Inc. v. Kundan Rice Mills, Ltd., et. al., No. 19-cv-1296, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61867).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on April 10 announced that a consultation was held from April 7 to April with member states to discuss amending the ICSID procedural rules.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An Australian corporation on March 26 voluntarily dismissed its petition to confirm a $19,949,585 arbitral award issued in its favor and against the government of the Republic of The Maldives (Platinum Blackstone Pty. Ltd. v. The Government of the Republic of The Maldives, No. 1:19-cv-00255, D. D.C.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 5 approved a request for fees filed by construction companies in a contractor’s appeal of an order vacating an international arbitral award that was issued in a dispute over contracts for the construction of buildings in Afghanistan (Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC Centom Constructors LLC, et al., No. 17-16510, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10173).
HONG KONG — The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) on April 9 announced that it has been granted permission to operate as the first foreign arbitral institution permitted to administer arbitrations in Russia.
MIAMI — After recently compelling arbitration between the widow of a deceased crewmember and a cruise line, a Florida federal judge on April 4 declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the only remaining claims asserted against a marine vessel equipment supplier and remanded the case to a Florida state court (Jelen Carpio v. NCL [Bahamas] Ltd., et al., No. 1:18-cv-22923, S.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59192).
PORTLAND — A Swiss shipping company on April 3 filed a petition to confirm an arbitration award issued in its favor by a London tribunal for breach of a charter agreement, asking that the court enforce the award and declare the charterer and another entity alter egos (Bunge S.A. v. Pacific Gulf Shipping [Singapore] Pte. Ltd., No. 3:19-cv-00491, D. Ore.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Republic of Nigeria on April 1 filed an opening brief in its appeal to the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, challenging a judge’s order that granted a motion for a briefing schedule in an action to confirm a $6,597,000,000 award, arguing that the court erred in requiring Nigeria to assert defenses to confirmation of the award before first making a sovereign immunity determination (Process and Industrial Developments Limited v. Federal Republic Of Nigeria, et al., No. 18-7154, D.C. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An Afghani contractor in an April 1 opposition argues that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should deny a request for fees filed by construction companies in relation to a court’s vacatur of a $1,072,520 arbitral award, arguing that the request was premature and was filed under the wrong contract provision (Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC Centom Constructors LLC, et al., No. 17-16510, 9th Cir.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — After holding that a written agreement to arbitration existed between a stewardess and a cruise line and no defenses to arbitration applied, a New York federal judge on March 29 granted a motion to compel arbitration of the dispute in Bermuda (Tetyana Moskalenko v. Carnival PLC, et al., No. 17-CV-6947, E.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56584).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — After holding that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act could not be used to challenge nonfrivolous litigation, a District of Columbia federal judge on March 30 dismissed causes of action stemming from the Republic of Kazakhstan’s allegations that a $497,685,101 arbitral award was obtained through fraud (Republic of Kazakhstan v. Anatolie Stati, et al., No. 17-2067, D. D.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54753).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on March 28 moved a District of Columbia federal court to strike a stipulation for final judgment confirming a $491,081,701 arbitral award issued in favor of a Netherlands entity, arguing that the current government did not engage the counsel that entered into the agreement on its behalf and that Venezuela does not consent to the stipulation (OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:16-cv-01533, D. D.C.).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 26 reversed a decision dismissing a law firm’s request to intervene in a breach of contract case involving an arbitration award issued for a Malaysian entity, holding that a district court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the firm’s claims that it was denied attorney fees to which it was entitled when the parties secretly settled the award amount without the firm’s knowledge (Adam Joseph Resources [M] SDN., et al. v. CNA Metals Limited, No. 17-20685, 5th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9007).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A New York federal judge on March 22 granted a motion filed by a cruise line and its subsidiary to compel arbitration of unpaid wages and other claims, holding that the dispute was subject to an agreement that provides for arbitration of seafarers’ disputes in the Philippines (Fernando Lucina, et al. v. Carnival PLC, et al., No. 17-CV-6849, E.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49371).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal on March 22 dismissed an arbitration commenced against the Oriental Republic of Uruguay in relation to the revocation of a license to provide wireless data services there, holding that the data services provider was not an investor under a bilateral investment treaty and that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the case (Itabla Corp. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, No. ARB/16/9, ICSID).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.