OPINION AND ORDER Before this Court is a petition by petitioner Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. (“PRH”) to recognize, confirm, and enforce a Partial Final Award of an international arbitration panel in its favor against the respondents Republic of Haiti and the Bureau de Monétisation des Programmes d’Aide au Développement, a Haitian governmental agency (collectively, “BMPAD”).1 BMPAD opposes the petition, primarily arguing that (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the case because the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”) does not apply and (2) even if the New York Convention did apply, enforcement would be precluded by several enumerated defenses under the New York Convention. (Doc 19 (BMPAD Br.) at 2-3.) For the following reasons, PRH’s petition is granted. Familiarity with the filings and the Court’s orders in this matter and the related matters (21-cv-4960 (PKC) and 21-cv-9040 (PKC)) is presumed. BACKGROUND PRH is a company organized under the laws of Haiti with a principal place of business in Pétion-Ville, Haiti. (Doc 8 (Petition) 2.) PRH provides infrastructure-project management and material supply, and as related to the at-issue claims against BMPAD, also acted as a marine transportation fuel supplier and importer of record. (Id.) BMPAD are foreign entities organized under the laws of Haiti with a principal place of business in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. (Id. 3.) On May 13, 2020, PRH and BMPAD entered into three contracts whereby PRH agreed to source, ship, and deliver fuel to BMPAD for a fee. (21-cv-04960 (PKC), Doc 60 (the “Sept. 2021 Order”) at 2; Petition
7-8 (citing 21-cv-04960 (PKC), Doc 14-1 (Leconte Aff.) 2).) Specifically, PRH agreed to make six monthly shipments of certain fuels, based on the total monthly quantity requested by BMPAD. (Sept. 2021 Order at 2.) The first four fuel orders proceeded uneventfully, but BMPAD allegedly fell behind on payments on the fifth order. (Id.) Though payment had yet to be received, PRH continued with the sourcing and shipping process, sending reminders to BMPAD as the invoices became due and ships were loaded with BMPAD’s fuel. (Id.) BMPAD acknowledged receipt of shipping documents for the Haiti-bound ships carrying the unpaid fuel and took possession of the fuel as the ships arrived in Haiti. However, payment was never sent to PRH. Eventually, PRH halted all fuel shipments to BMPAD and alleges that BMPAD now owes approximately $27.2 million dollars in damages from the unpaid invoices for fuel delivered, including lost profits. (Id.) The three contracts at issue contained identical arbitration clauses, which read as follows: Article 20. ARBITRATION AND LEGISLATION In the event of a dispute between the Buyer [BMPAD] and Seller [PRH] under this Contract, the dispute shall be submitted by either party to arbitration in New York before three arbitrators. The Party initiating the arbitration shall provide written notice of its intention to submit the matter to arbitration. Such notification shall contain a statement identifying the request for arbitration and specifying the arbitrator appointed by the initiating Party. Within ten (10) days of such notice of arbitration, the other Party will identify its appointed arbitrator. If such Party fails to appoint an arbitrator within the applicable 10-day period and fails to give timely notice of such appointment to the Initiating Party, then the initiating Party shall also be entitled to appoint this second arbitrator. The third arbitrator will be chosen by the two arbitrators thus selected…. The decision of the arbitrators shall be final, conclusive and binding on all Parties. Judgment upon such award may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction…. No arbitrator shall be an employee, representative or agent of a Party and each shall reasonably believe that the selecting Party has the experience, education and expertise in the matters to which the claim relates to enable that person to competently perform such arbitration function. (Leconte Aff. 6.) Pursuant to the arbitration clauses in the three contracts, PRH served a notice demanding arbitration of its claims against BMPAD on November 20, 2020. (Petition 83; Sept. 2021 Order at 2.) The arbitration notice identified Robert G. Shaw as PRH’s appointed arbitrator, called upon BMPAD to appoint its own arbitrator, and indicated that if “BMPAD fails to appoint an arbitrator within 10 days, PRH will select an arbitrator on [BMPAD's] behalf. Both arbitrators will then appoint a third arbitrator.” (Doc 5-1 (Partial Final Award) 4.) BMPAD did not appoint the second arbitrator by the required deadline of November 30, 2020 and PRH appointed LeRoy Lambert as the second arbitrator. (Id. 5.) On December 1, 2020, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Lambert appointed Louis Epstein as the third and final arbitrator on the panel, and Mr. Epstein notified the parties of his appointment. (Id.) In response, on December 22, 2020, BMPAD filed a petition in the Supreme Court of New York to stay the arbitration pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. §7503(b) (Case Index No. 657237/2020). (Partial Final Award 6; Doc 20-1 at 9.) On March 24, 2021, PRH submitted its Initial Claim Statement and Request for an Interim Partial Award of Security to the arbitration panel. (Petition 84; Partial Final Award 7.) On March 27, 2021, BMPAD responded via e-mail to PRH’s Initial Claim Statement and Request for an Interim Partial Award, stating that BMPAD did not recognize the panel’s jurisdiction and had filed in state court a petition for a stay and request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. (Petition 84; Partial Final Award 8.) On April 5, 2021, in the absence of injunctive relief from state court, the panel ruled that the arbitration would proceed. (Sept. 2021 Order at 2; Partial Final Award
