District Court Stays U.S. Case Seeking to Enforce a Foreign Arbitral Award
In their Arbitration column, Samuel Estreicher and Holly H. Weiss discuss a recent case that serves as a good example of sound U.S. judicial discretion in dealing with foreign arbitration awards.
July 12, 2019 at 12:30 PM
4 minute read
In 2015, an arbitration panel in Paris, France found the Republic of Uzbekistan liable to Oxus Gold PLC for approximately $13 million, due to its expropriation of two gold mines. Oxus's expenses in the arbitration were funded by Gretton Ltd., a litigation funder, and Oxus had assigned the proceeds of an arbitration award to Gretton in 2012. Although Oxus obtained recognition of the award from a Parisian court, in 2016 it appealed to a French appellate court to set aside the arbitration award to the extent it denied Oxus's claims. Uzbekistan opposed the appeal, and sought to vacate the entire award.
In 2018, while the French appeal was pending, Gretton filed a petition against Uzbekistan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to enforce the previously recognized award. In response, Uzbekistan moved to dismiss the case, or in the alternative, for a stay of the case pending the decision of the French appellate court. The district court issued the requested stay of the U.S. proceeding in Gretton Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, No. 18-cv-01755 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2019).
The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§201-208, codifies the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention). Under the New York Convention, district courts have discretion to stay U.S. proceedings if “an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award has been made to a competent authority.” New York Convention art. VI. Accordingly, the district court noted that it “can stay the case” under the New York Convention, but that the question presented was whether it should do so. To answer this question, the court looked to the Second Circuit's seminal decision in Europcar Italia, S.p.A. v. Maiellano Tours,156 F.3d 310, 317 (2d Cir. 1998). In Europcar, the court of appeals held that, because “the adjournment of enforcement proceedings impedes the goals of arbitration—the expeditious resolution of disputes and the avoidance of protracted and expensive litigation”—“[a] stay of confirmation should not be lightly granted.” Europcar lists six factors for courts to consider (156 F.3d at 317-18):
(1) the general objectives of arbitration—the expeditions resolution of disputes and the avoidance of protracted and expensive litigation;
(2) the status of the foreign proceedings and the estimated time for those proceedings to be resolved;
(3) whether the award sought to be enforced will receive greater scrutiny in the foreign proceedings under a less deferential standard of review;
(4) the characteristics of the foreign proceedings, such as whether they were brought to enforce or to set aside an award;
(5) a balance of the possible hardships to the parties; and
(6) any other circumstances that could tend to shift the balance in favor of or against adjournment.
Applying the Euoropcar factors, the district court first determined that a stay would avoid unnecessary and expensive piecemeal litigation given the centrality of the French appeal. Second, because a decision on the French appeal was expected within a few months, the stay would not unduly lengthen the proceedings. Third, because there was no overlap between the foreign and U.S. proceedings, the level of scrutiny of the award in the foreign proceeding was irrelevant. Fourth, the district court found that the characteristics of the foreign proceedings weighed in favor of a stay, including that the party requesting the stay did not do so to delay a resolution. Fifth, the court found that Gretton would not suffer from the delay caused by the stay. Finally, the district court considered “other circumstances that might shift the balance,” including the likely outcome of the French appeal, and determined those to be insufficient to tip the scales in favor of denying the stay request.
As expected, in May 2019, the French appellate court issued its decision: It dismissed Oxus's request to set aside, partially, the award. Oxus informed the district court that it will not appeal that decision. This case is a good example of sound U.S. judicial discretion in dealing with foreign arbitration awards.
Samuel Estreicher is the Dwight D. Opperman Professor and Director of the Center for Labor and Employment Law at New York University School of Law. Holly H. Weiss is a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatham, Kirkland Alums Land the Top GC Posts—Here's What It Means for Business Generation
10 minute read'A Sea Change': NY Equal Rights Measure May Prompt Flurry of Lawsuits if Approved by Voters
Walking the AI Tightrope: Communicating Innovation Without Undermining Core Values
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250