Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Eleventh Circuit Finds District Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Freeze Defendant’s Assets During Pendency of Action to Confirm Arbitration Award Against Him

December 13, 2023 by Alex Bein

In Noble Prestige Ltd. v. Galle, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether the trial court properly granted a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from dispersing assets during the pendency of the plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award rendered in its favor and against the defendants.

In that case, plaintiff Noble Prestige Ltd. issued a $500,000 loan to defendant Paul Horn to pursue litigation against AT&T, a telecommunications company. Under the terms of the loan, Horn agreed to repay Noble $5 million or 5% of his recovery from the litigation, whichever was greater. Noble also obtained a “security interest lien” in that portion of any recovery from AT&T. Thereafter, a Colorado state court found that Horn was unable to manage his own affairs due to various neurological disorders and placed Horn’s estate into a conservatorship. The Colorado court named defendant Craig Thomas Galle, Horn’s long-time attorney, as conservator of his estate.

The AT&T litigation ultimately settled for $57.5 million, and Noble sought to collect the $5 million it claimed it was owed by Horn under the loan. But the Colorado probate court refused to authorize Galle to repay the loan from Horn’s estate, and Noble initiated an arbitration proceeding in Hong Kong to enforce the terms of the loan. The arbitral panel found in Noble’s favor, and Noble filed a petition to confirm the award in federal court in the Southern District of Florida.

In the proceeding before the district court, Noble sought an order confirming the award rendered by the arbitral panel, and also sought an order freezing the AT&T settlement funds pending judgment in the confirmation proceeding. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the petition and issued an order freezing the AT&T settlement funds pending a final judgment as requested by Noble. The defendants appealed.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit declined to exercise appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, noting that the denial of the defendants’ motion was not a final, appealable judgment. But the court held that the asset freeze order was immediately appealable as a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The court then vacated the preliminary injunction on two main grounds. First, the court applied the doctrine of “prior exclusive jurisdiction,” holding that because the Colorado probate court had already exercised exclusive in rem jurisdiction over Horn’s estate pursuant to Colorado probate law, the district court lacked the jurisdiction to assert equitable control over the same real property in the form of an asset freeze.

Second, the court held that the district court lacked authority to award preliminary injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), noting that Noble’s petition in the district court sought final relief only in the form of a legal remedy (confirmation of the arbitration award) and did not otherwise invoke the court’s equitable jurisdiction. In so holding, the court noted that the existence of Noble’s lien against the Horn estate, standing alone, was insufficient to invoke the court’s equitable jurisdiction, as Noble had not affirmatively petitioned the district court to exercise its equitable authority in the form of an order of foreclosure on that lien. The court otherwise took no position as to whether Noble could state a claim for foreclosure of the lien in the district court.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected Noble’s remaining arguments, vacated the asset freeze order, and remanded to the district court to address the merits of Noble’s pending petition to confirm the arbitration award.

SDNY Confirms Arbitration Award Under New York Convention

November 10, 2023 by Kenneth Cesta

In Exclusive Trim Inc. v. Kastamonu Romania, S.A., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitration award issued in an arbitration held before the International Centre for Dispute Resolution.

The parties entered into a supply agreement, which, among other terms, set forth the minimum amount of product to be purchased by the petitioner from the respondent in the first year. The agreement also included an arbitration provision requiring all controversies and claims be resolved through arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA), and “judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.” A dispute arose between the parties and the petitioner filed an arbitration proceeding with the AAA alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The matter was assigned to the AAA’s international division, the International Centre for Dispute Resolution. After an evidentiary hearing held in New York, the arbitrator issued an award for the petitioner on its claims and rejected the respondent’s counterclaim. The award required the respondent to make payment within 30 days.

After the respondent failed to satisfy the award, the petitioner filed a petition under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act to confirm and enforce the award. The respondent did not oppose the petition. In reviewing the petition, the district court concluded it had jurisdiction over the matter, noting that the four requirements for determining whether an arbitration agreement falls within the scope of the New York Convention had been met: “(1) there must be a written agreement; (2) it must provide for arbitration in the territory of a signatory of the convention; (3) the subject matter must be commercial; and (4) it cannot be entirely domestic in scope.” The court then analyzed the applicable standard of review for the matter, noting that it must enforce the arbitration award unless one of the seven defenses under the New York Convention was established. The court noted that the respondent had not appeared in the action or opposed the petition, and “if a petition to enforce an arbitration award is unopposed, a court need not inquire on its own into whether an exception to enforcement applies” and, in any event, there was no suggestion in the record that any of the defenses under the New York Convention were applicable. The court held that the petitioner established it was entitled to judgment in its favor in accordance with the award and granted the petition.

Exclusive Trim, Inc. v. Kastamonu Romania, S.A., No. 1:23-cv-03410 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2023).

Court Confirms Arbitration Award Against Non-Signatory Intervening Party in Arbitration

September 5, 2023 by Michael Wolgin

Paychex Inc. had entered into an agreement to provide a company, Dan-Gulf Shipping Inc., with payroll-related services. The agreement contained an arbitration clause governed by the rules of the American Arbitration Association. In 2020, Dan-Gulf commenced arbitration against Paychex under the AAA’s commercial arbitration rules. During the course of the arbitration, Paychex filed a motion to dismiss, but prior to the ruling of the arbitration panel on the motion, another company affiliated with Dan-Gulf, Caytrans BBC LLC, intervened in the arbitration. Paychex then refiled its motion to dismiss to address Caytrans’ claims, which the panel subsequently granted against Caytrans. The panel then entered a partial final award dismissing all of Caytrans’ claims against Paychex (with one of Dan-Gulf’s claims surviving against Paychex).

In September 2020, Paychex filed a petition to confirm the partial final award, to which Caytrans failed to respond. In February 2023, a default was entered against Caytrans. The court has now determined that it is proper for it to enter an order confirming the award. The court found that Paychex demonstrated that diversity subject matter jurisdiction existed over the case. The court also determined that, by electing to intervene in the AAA arbitration, Caytrans consented to the AAA rules, which authorize “that judgment upon the arbitration award may be entered in any federal or state court having jurisdiction thereof.” The court further found that the arbitration was venued, and the partial final award was made, in Rochester, New York, “which is within this judicial district.” Finally, the court determined that the partial final award was valid, there was no “apparent basis for the court not to confirm it,” and the fact that the partial final award “only disposed of the claims between Caytrans and Paychex and not the claims between Dan-Gulf and Paychex is not a barrier to confirmation.” The court therefore confirmed the partial final award.

Paychex, Inc. v. Caytrans BBC LLC, No. 6:22-cv-06411 (W.D.N.Y. July 31, 2023).

Second Circuit Affirms Confirmation of Arbitration Award Issued Under Cyprus-Libya Bilateral Investment Treaty

August 11, 2023 by Benjamin Stearns

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the confirmation of an arbitration award issued under a bilateral investment treaty between Libya and Cyprus. We previously described the underlying Southern District of New York opinion confirming the award in a prior post.

On appeal to the Second Circuit, Libya primarily argued that the district court erred by declining to independently review the arbitrability of the claims involved before confirming the final award. The Second Circuit disagreed with Libya’s contention that a de novo standard should have been applied to review the arbitral tribunal’s decision because Libya “clearly and unmistakably” agreed to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Libya indisputably agreed to arbitrate such issues when it signed the bilateral investment treaty providing Cypriot investors with the option of resolving disputes under the arbitral rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

In so holding, the court noted the consistent line of cases holding that “when one party is a signatory to a bilateral investment treaty containing a provision for arbitration, the treaty constitutes a standing offer to arbitrate disputes covered by the treaty, and a foreign investor’s written demand for arbitration completes the agreement in writing to submit the dispute to arbitration.” The bilateral investment treaty simply creates “a framework through which foreign investors can initiate arbitration against parties to the Treaty. Accordingly, all that is necessary to form an agreement to arbitrate is for one party to be a [bilateral investment treaty] signatory and the other to consent to arbitration of an investment dispute in accordance with the Treaty’s terms.”

Having determined that a valid arbitration agreement was formed upon submission of the claim to the arbitral tribunal of the ICC by the Cypriot investor, the court turned next to the question of arbitrability of the dispute. While courts presume that questions of arbitrability are for the court to decide, not the arbitrator, that presumption is overcome where the record “supplies clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to submit the issue to arbitration.” Such “clear and unmistakable” evidence of intent can be provided by the incorporation of rules that empower an arbitrator to decide issues of arbitrability. To determine whether such rules have been incorporated into the parties’ agreement, the courts look to both the text of the relevant bilateral investment treaty and the procedural rules adopted by the parties at the outset of the arbitration.

Here, the terms of the bilateral investment treaty authorized investors to submit a dispute to the ICC. ICC rules presumptively apply to disputes submitted to the ICC. Accordingly, by signing the bilateral investment treaty, “Libya clearly and unmistakably agreed to send questions of arbitrability” to the arbitrator. As a result, the district court was required to defer to the arbitrator’s determination of the arbitrability of the parties’ dispute. The Second Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s decision declining de novo review and confirmation of the ICC tribunal’s arbitration award.

Olin Holdings Ltd. v. State of Libya, No. 22-825 (2d Cir. July 12, 2023).

Southern District of New York Dismisses Petition to Confirm $145M Foreign Arbitration Award for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

August 4, 2023 by Brendan Gooley

The Southern District of New York recently dismissed a petition to confirm a $145 million arbitration award rendered in Hong Kong based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

Zhongzhi Hi-Tech Overseas Investment Ltd. obtained a $145 million arbitration award in Hong Kong against Dr. Vincent Wenyong Shi related to Dr. Shi’s and another company’s alleged failure to make contractually required payments.

Hi-Tech moved to confirm that award in the Southern District of New York. Dr. Shi moved to dismiss, claiming a lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that New York’s long-arm statute was not met and that jurisdiction did not comport with due process.

Hi-Tech argued that New York’s long-arm statute was met based on Dr. Shi’s (1) execution of a contract providing that New York law would govern that contract, (2) Dr. Shi’s defense of a lawsuit pending in the Southern District, and (3) Dr. Shi’s role as an executive of a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The district court rejected these arguments.

First, it noted that the contract had been amended and that its choice-of-law provision had been replaced by a new clause providing that Hong Kong law would govern. The original choice-of-law provision therefore provided no basis for jurisdiction, and Hi-Tech conceded that a choice-of-law provision “does not equate to consent to jurisdiction” in any event.

Second, Dr. Shi was involved in defending a suit in the Southern District against a company he was involved in, but “a party’s consent to jurisdiction in one case extends to that case alone” and therefore did not provide a basis for jurisdiction against Dr. Shi in this case.

Third, although a company Dr. Shi was a leader in had been listed on the New York Stock Exchange, having a company listed on the NYSE is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Even if it was, the company had been delisted and there was thus no basis for jurisdiction.

With respect to due process, the court noted that New York and the United States had little interest in the dispute and that Dr. Shi had little or no reason to expect to be hailed into court there.

Zhongzhi Hi-Tech Overseas Investment Ltd. v. Wenyong Shi, No. 1:22-cv-06977 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2023).