Under existing precedent in the 11th Circuit, which includes Florida, federal courts cannot overturn international arbitration awards on the ground that the arbitrators “exceeded their powers,” a frequently invokedContinue Reading Can An International Arbitration Award Be Vacated When The Seat Of Arbitration Is The US Or US Law Is The Substantive Law?
The appeals courts for the 3rd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits have ruled that a non-frivolous appeal of…Continue Reading Does An Appeal Of A District Court’s Denial Of A Motion To Compel Arbitration Automatically Stay The Case?
Reversing a district court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently ruled that federal district courts have jurisdiction to enforce a summons issued by arbitrators in…Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rules that Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction to Enforce SummonsesIssued by Arbitrators in International Arbitrations under the New York Convention
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, unlike petitions to compel arbitration, petitions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award cannot be brought in federal court simply because the underlying…
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Petitions to Confirm or Vacate Arbitration Awards Cannot Be Brought In Federal Court Simply Because the Underlying Dispute Involves a Federal Question
International Arbitration and Cross-Border Insolvency – Common Scenarios Encountered by Practitioners
The topic of whether an arbitrator or a court should decide the question of arbitrability has been the subject of long-standing debate among international scholars and practitioners. In First Options of Chicago Inc. v. Kaplan, the Supreme Court stated the general rule that “[c]ourts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is ‘clear and unmistakabl[e]’ evidence that they did so.” 514 U.S. 938. But what constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence of the intent to arbitrate arbitrability?
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently provided an example of an arbitration clause that contains such “clear and unmistakable” evidence to delegate questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. In Nidec Corporation v. Seagate Technology LLC, Civ. Action No. 21-52 (D. Del. July 20, 2021), Nidec Corporation (“Nidec”) brought a patent infringement action against Seagate Technology LLC (“Seagate”) and other defendants. Seagate, relying on the arbitration clause in the parties’ agreement, moved to compel arbitration. Seagate argued that the arbitration clause requires the Court to delegate to an arbitrator the decision whether the agreement applies to the claims at issue. Seagate relied on the following language in the agreement:
If the parties are unable to resolve any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including the formation, interpretation, breach or termination thereof, whether the dispute, controversy or claim asserted is able to be arbitrated … then either party will have the option to request that the dispute be finally determined by arbitration in accordance with the JAMS International Arbitration Rules.
Nidec argued that it only agreed to arbitrate disputes that arise under the agreement and Seagate should not be allowed to compel arbitration by declaring that each dispute between the parties is a dispute arising out of or relating to the agreement. …
Continue Reading Delaware Federal Court Must Abide By The Parties Decision To Delegate The Arbitrability Of The Dispute To The Arbitrator Even If The Arbitration Agreement Is Irrelevant To The Dispute
Strategies to Collect International Arbitration Awards
One of the problems that parties to international arbitration face is that the opposing party may attempt to move its assets so that if…
Continue Reading Strategies to Collect International Arbitration Awards
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari on an issue involving domestic arbitration that has divided the federal courts of appeal (Badgerow v. Walters, Docket No. 20-1143):
As the U.S. Supreme Court currently considers the issue of whether a private international arbitration constitutes a “foreign or international tribunal” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), the…
Continue Reading The D.C. District Court Allows State Sponsored Tribunal to Seek Discovery in Federal Court under 28 USC § 1782(a)
Insolvency proceedings can create potential roadblocks for arbitration proceedings that require careful navigation. Arbitration proceedings are private contractual proceedings intended to resolve individual claims. In contrast, insolvency proceedings are public…
Continue Reading Insolvency and Arbitration Proceedings – Are They So Happy Together?