Opinion ID: 4512967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Recognition of the Singapore Judgment

Text: BPS next argues that the district court erred in recognizing the Singapore Judgment. BPS points to two purported shortcomings in the foreign proceedings that supposedly undermine the propriety of according the foreign judgment comity: the absence of a full and final judgment and the strong federal policy favoring arbitration. We need not decide whether the proper standard of review for the district court’s recognition decision is abuse of discretion, see Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. Pemex-Emploración y Producción, 832 F.3d 92, 100 (2d Cir. 2016), or de novo, see Diorinou v. Mezitis, 237 F.3d 133, 139–40 (2d Cir. 2001), because BPS’s arguments fail even under de novo review. As to BPS’s first argument, the Singapore Judgment resolved the relevant issue here: the existence of an arbitration agreement between CSCL and BPS. BPS conceded before the Singaporean courts that this question had to be decided in that proceeding, and BPS actively litigated the issue. Moreover, the Singapore action was not merely an in rem proceeding related to the arrest of CSCL’s vessel. Rather, BPS sought damages arising out of its supposed contract with CSCL. Accordingly, the Singapore Judgment was not limited, as BPS now contends, but was a full decision addressing the existence of the arbitration agreement at issue. Turning to BPS’s second argument, there is a “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011) (citation omitted). But that policy 3 does not elevate arbitration agreements above other contracts; it solely requires enforcement, “according to their terms, of private agreements to arbitrate.” Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 476 (1989); see also New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 90 F.3d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1996) (“[F]ederal policy alone cannot be enough to extend the application of an arbitration clause far beyond its intended scope.” (citation omitted)). As BPS concedes, American courts vindicate the policy favoring arbitration through judicial proceedings that assess whether an agreement to arbitrate exists. And that is precisely the process BPS received in Singapore. The policy favoring arbitration does not require that BPS get a second hearing on this issue in the United States. BPS’s argument to the contrary is without merit.