Opinion ID: 746823
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Availability Under the Convention of Implied Grounds for Refusal

Text: 33 We have held that the FAA and the Convention have overlapping coverage to the extent that they do not conflict. Bergesen, 710 F.2d at 934; see 9 U.S.C. § 208 (FAA may apply to actions brought under the Convention to the extent that [the FAA] is not in conflict with [9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208] or the Convention as ratified by the United States); Lander Co. v. MMP Invs., Inc., 107 F.3d 476, 481 (7th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 55, --- L.Ed.2d ----, (1997). However, by that same token, to the extent that the Convention prescribes the exclusive grounds for relief from an award under the Convention, that application of the FAA's implied grounds would be in conflict, and is thus precluded. See, e.g., M & C Corp. v. Erwin Behr GmbH & Co., KG, 87 F.3d 844, 851 (6th Cir.1996) 34 In Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale de L'Industrie du Papier (Rakta), 508 F.2d 969 (2d Cir.1974), we declined to decide whether the implied defense of manifest disregard applies under the Convention, having decided that even if it did, appellant's claim would fail. See id. at 977. Nonetheless, we noted that [b]oth the legislative history of Article V and the statute enacted to implement the United States' accession to the Convention are strong authority for treating as exclusive the bases set forth in the Convention for vacating an award. Id. (citation and footnote omitted). 35 There is now considerable caselaw holding that, in an action to confirm an award rendered in, or under the law of, a foreign jurisdiction, the grounds for relief enumerated in Article V of the Convention are the only grounds available for setting aside an arbitral award. See, e.g., M & C, 87 F.3d at 851 (concluding that the Convention's exclusive grounds for relief do not include miscalculations of fact or manifest disregard of the law); International Standard Elec. Corp. v. Bridas Sociedad Anonima Petrolera, Industrial Y Comercial, 745 F.Supp. 172, 181-82 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (refusing to apply a manifest disregard of law standard on a motion to vacate a foreign arbitral award); Brandeis Intsel Ltd. v. Calabrian Chems. Corp., 656 F.Supp. 160, 167 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (In my view, the 'manifest disregard' defense is not available under Article V of the Convention or otherwise to a party ... seeking to vacate an award of foreign arbitrators based upon foreign law.); see also Albert Jan van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958: Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation 265 (1981) (the grounds mentioned in Article V are exhaustive ). This conclusion is consistent with the Convention's pro-enforcement bias. See, e.g., Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519-20 & n. 15, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 2457 & n. 15, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974); Parsons, 508 F.2d at 973. We join these courts in declining to read into the Convention the FAA's implied defenses to confirmation of an arbitral award. 36