This article discusses the recent decision of Corporación Mexicana De Mantenimiento Integral, S. De R.L. De C.V. v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, 2016 WL 4087215 (2d Cir., Aug. 2, 2016), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York confirming an arbitration award rendered in Mexico, even though that award had been vacated by a Mexican court. In doing so, the Second Circuit articulated a cogent analytical framework for courts addressing the question of whether to confirm awards that have been vacated at the arbitral seat.
Confirmation and Vacatur
Before getting to the specifics of the Second Circuit’s decision, it is necessary to set the scene by outlining three important differences between the confirmation of an arbitration award and its vacatur. This article discusses those differences by focusing upon awards that fall under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) and the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (Panama Convention). There is no substantive difference between the two from the standpoint of the enforcement of arbitral awards and, for the sake of simplicity, the term “Convention” refers to both.1
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
