In the January 31, 2014 edition of the New York Law Journal, Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky mark the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s lone Section 1782 decision by discussing the significant uncertainty that remains concerning an issue spawned by that decision.
On October 17, 2013, the New York Court of Appeals refused to apply direct benefits estoppel to bind a non-signatory to arbitrate. “The mere existence of an agreement with attendant circumstances that prove advantageous to the non-signatory would not constitute the type of direct benefits justifying compelling arbitration by a non-party.” Matter of Belzberg v Verus Invs. Holdings Inc., 2013 NY Slip Op 06729.
Three recent decisions by the U.S. Courts of Appeals in New Orleans, Boston and New York reaffirm the longstanding position that arbitrators in U.S.-based arbitrations have discretion to determine the proper scope of discovery and are not bound to follow U.S. litigation discovery practices. Gregory A. Litt and Colm P. McInerney examine these cases.
The Fifth Circuit refused to vacate an arbitration award based on a party’s claim that discovery was inadequate. In Bain Cotton Co. v. Chestnutt Cotton Co., No. 12-11138 (June 24, 2013), the court wrote that “the arbitrators’ handling of Bain’s dicovery requests … does not rise to the level required for vacating under [the FAA].”
Financier Worldwide speaks with Edna Sussman, an arbitrator and mediator at Sussman LLC, about the advantages of New York as a centre of arbitration.
Alexandra Dosman, Executive Director of NYIAC, examines the legal framework for recognizing and enforcing foreign awards in New York courts and discusses the limited grounds for challenging awards made in New York under the Federal Arbitration Act in the July-September 2013 Corporate Disputes Magazine.
The New York Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision in Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, holding that a bank cannot be ordered to turn over assets to a judgment creditor that were deposited by the judgment debtor with the bank’s foreign subsidiary.
Samaa A. Haridi, Marguerite C. Walter and Sylvana Q. Sinha explore recent decisions from New York’s state and federal appellate courts on pre-award attachement of assets and the enforcement of international arbitration awards in New York.
The New York Court of Appeals issued a decision in IRB Brasil Resseguros, S.A. v. Inepar Investments, S.A., holding that “parties are not required to expressly exclude New York conflict-of-laws principles in their choice-of-law provision in order to avail themselves of New York substantive law.” The Court noted that the goal of the relevant New York statute — General Obligations Law § 5-1401 — is “to promote and preserve New York’s status as a commercial center and to maintain predictability for the parties.”
The Committee on International Commercial Disputes of the New York City Bar Association issued a detailed report, The “Manifest Disregard of Law” Doctrine and International Arbitration in New York. The Committee found that “the manifest disregard doctrine has been applied sparingly, especially so in the context of international awards challenged in New York state and federal courts,” and that “no international arbitral award rendered in New York has ever been set aside in the Second Circuit on the ground of manifest disregard.”
