WASHINGTON, D.C. — An International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal in a recently published April 19 decision dismissed the state of Georgia’s objection to an arbitration brought by an Azerbaijani telecommunications investor after finding that contrary to the objection, the investor complied with a requirement for interstate negotiation under the two nations’ bilateral investment treaty (BIT) by notifying Georgia of the dispute.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal on June 15 granted an application by the European Union’s European Commission (EC) to file a submission challenging the arbitration of intra-EU disputes under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) in a case brought by 58 European entities against the Italian Republic for allegedly interfering with their energy investments.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 21 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by heirs of Saudi sheiks seeking review of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ refusal to enforce an $18 billion arbitral award against an American oil company and its subsidiary for the use of Saudi oilfields without addressing the heirs’ last-minute motion to postpone the conference and consider allegations of impropriety in pending sanctions proceedings against the heirs’ counsel.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 17 affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a Lithuanian company’s petition to enforce an arbitral award worth more than $20 million against a state-owned Tajik airline, finding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the airline to enforce the award.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A District of Columbia federal judge on June 14 confirmed an arbitral award against the Kyrgyz Republic for the expropriation of a Canadian company and its subsidiary’s investments in uranium and rare earth element mining and entered default judgment for damages of more than $15 million and attorney fees and arbitration costs of more than $3 million with interest accruing after Kyrgyzstan failed to appear.
SEATTLE — An Indian company that prevailed in a $1.3 billion arbitration against an Indian state-owned company before being liquidated by Indian courts on June 8 filed an appellant brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals arguing that a district court erred by granting the Indian company’s U.S. subsidiary and three Mauritian shareholders’ motion to register the court’s judgment in Virginia.
PITTSBURGH — A Pennsylvania federal judge on June 14 granted a coal company’s second motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and enjoined four Indian companies and one Singaporean entity from proceeding with arbitration over a coal sales contract the company says it never signed after finding that the coal company provided exhibits establishing that it made good faith efforts to notify the foreign companies of the litigation.
PASADENA, Calif. — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 10 reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by an award-creditor accusing 12 parties of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by conspiring to evade enforcement of a confirmed arbitral award worth more than $92 million for a Russian investment dispute, finding that the creditor’s judgment constitutes domestic property.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The owners of several Zimbabwean plantation-operating companies seeking to confirm a more than $263 million arbitral award against the Republic of Zimbabwe on June 13 asked a District of Columbia federal judge to take notice of their settlement in a Zimbabwean court with companies they own agreeing to divide the award with each other, which they say undercuts Zimbabwe’s argument that the owners and companies are seeking double recovery.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Resolving a circuit split, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 13 in two consolidated cases reversed two courts and ruled that district court assistance with discovery is not available to private commercial arbitrations or ad hoc international arbitral tribunals, holding that the statute applies only to foreign tribunals imbued with governmental authority.
POCATELLO, Idaho — A federal judge in Idaho on June 7 denied the Lao People’s Democratic Republic’s fourth motion to amend its complaint against a businessman and his businesses to include two arbitral award-debtors that owe Laos more than $3.7 million for a gambling investment dispute, writing that further amendment would be “futile and prejudicial” because Laos “fails to demonstrate a prima facie case for specific jurisdiction.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) recently released a tribunal’s April 22 order on transparency and the underlying 2021 request for arbitration in a dispute commenced by a U.S. oil company that claims that the Slovak Republic caused it to lose more than $2.1 billion in potential profits by expropriating its oil drilling investment.
PITTSBURGH — A Pennsylvania federal judge on June 7 denied a coal company’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt an arbitration commenced against it by four Indian companies and one Singaporean entity over a coal contract that the coal company claims it never signed after the judge found that the company failed to comply with the court’s rules of procedure.
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on June 6 denied a Brazilian company’s ex parte application to attach a Brazilian businessman’s assets and its application to seal the docket, both filed that day, after the company had petitioned the court to confirm an arbitral award against the businessman worth more than $40 million for allegedly defaulting on loans to a sanitation and infrastructure company.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Mongolia argues in a May 31 brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should not grant a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by three Chinese mining companies because the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals did not create conflict with high court precedent by deferentially reviewing a tribunal’s decision on arbitrability, adding that the companies agreed to delegate arbitrability to the tribunal.
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on May 31 granted a U.S. company’s motion for attorney fees and expenses at a slightly reduced amount against a Japanese company for fees and expenses incurred litigating the confirmation of an arbitral award and granted the U.S. company’s request to award it prejudgment, post-award interest at a 9% per annum rate.
BOSTON — A Massachusetts federal judge on May 31 denied a law firm’s motion to dismiss certain claims brought against it by an Austrian construction company and its U.S. subsidiary for allegedly fraudulently inducing them to agree to attorney fees that were later inflated by an “unreasonable” amount during arbitration of a construction dispute, finding the claims sufficiently pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 27 affirmed the confirmation of an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) award worth more than $131 million against the state of Libya in favor of an Austrian contractor whose road construction contract with Libya was disrupted during a 2011 civil war after rejecting its argument that the tribunal erred by not setting off the damages based on advance payments it made to the contractor.
ATLANTA — Describing itself as “powerless to change the course” of circuit precedent that it said is “out of line with Supreme Court precedent,” an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 27 affirmed a district court’s denial of a Guatemalan contractor’s petition to vacate an arbitral award worth more than $7 million for costs in a canceled hydroelectric dam project and called for en banc review to correct the error.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on May 31 denied a Texas consulting firm’s petition for review of a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling blocking it from arbitrating a contractual dispute with a Hong Kong entity for payment of a finder’s fee on a multimillion-dollar oil drilling deal, despite the firm’s argument that new precedent in Morgan v. Sundance supported its view that the right to arbitrate cannot be waived without evidence of intent to do so.