The United States Supreme Court this week resolved an important issue regarding international arbitrations by ruling that, contrary to what at least two appellate courts had previously ruled, a U.S.Continue Reading The Supreme Court Slams the Door on the Use of Federal Courts to Obtain Discovery in Aid of Foreign and International Arbitrations Before Private, Non-Governmental Adjudicatory Bodies
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
Sarah Biser and Craig Tractenberg will be presenting a webinar on hop topics on international litigation and arbitration on thursday, November 4, 2021 at 12 pm eastern.. You can register…
Continue Reading Overview of International Litigation and Arbitration
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
Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law on June 14 legislation that amended Article 53 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”), changing the rules regarding the state’s…
Continue Reading N.Y. Amends Law on Recognition of Foreign Judgments
Erika Levin, Oksana Wright and Michael Lieberman discuss, in a Law360 article, new Article 21 of the 2021 ICDR Rules, which specifically reinforces the tribunal’s authority to rule on…
Continue Reading Fox Rothschild’s Attorneys Publish Law360 Article On Recent ICDR Updates
In our recent post, we discussed the split in the federal appeals courts over whether a private international arbitration constitutes a “foreign or international tribunal” within the meaning of…
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Review Whether Federal Courts Can Order Discovery in Aid of Private International Arbitrations under 28 U.S.C. 1782(a)
On March 3, 2021, Israel signed the HCCH Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (“2019 Convention”). Israel became the third State to sign the Convention, joining Uruguay and Ukraine.
The Hague Conference on Private International Law adopted the Convention to provide a uniform process to HCCH member states for enforcing civil judgments in other countries throughout the world. The convention provides that contracting states will recognize and enforce certain civil or commercial judgments rendered by courts of other contracting states, obviating the need for a review of the underlying judgment on its merits.
The principal tenet of the convention is Article 4, which provides that “a judgment given by a court of a contracting state (state of origin) shall be recognized and enforced in another contracting state (requested state) in accordance with [chapter 2 of the convention].”
Although three States have now signed the 2019 Convention, the Convention has yet to be ratified, which is an important milestone for the Convention to come into full force and effect. …
Continue Reading Israel Becomes Third Signatory To 2019 HCCH Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters
As we have discussed in previous posts, federal appeals courts in the United States are split over whether a private international arbitration constitutes a “foreign or international tribunal” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), which authorizes U.S. district courts to provide assistance to foreign or international tribunals by ordering discovery of persons in the district. In a very recent case, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia recognized this split, and directed the parties to provide additional briefing before deciding this hotly disputed issue.
In In re Application of: Food Delivery Holding 12 S.A.R.L., 1:21-mc-00005, 2021 WL 860262 (Mar. 8, 2021), Food Delivery Holding 12 S.a.r.l. (“FDH”) filed an application under 28 U.S.C. §1782 for an order to issue a subpoena for the taking of deposition and production of documents for use in a matter before the Dubai International Finance Centre-London Court of International Arbitration (“DIFC-LCIA”).
The Court began its analysis by noting that deciding whether to grant discovery under Section 1782 involves a two-step inquiry:
First, the court must determine whether it can order the requested relief—that is, whether it has the authority to do so; second, it must decide whether it should order the requested relief—that is, whether exercising its discretion to do so would further the statute’s “twin aims of ‘providing efficient assistance to participants in international litigation and encouraging foreign countries by example to provide similar assistance in our courts.’”