main image

Archive for the ‘International Arbitration’ Category

GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC | International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution Interviews by Video Conference Philip J. Loree Jr. and Richard D. Faulkner

June 2nd, 2020 ADR Social Media, Arbitrability, Arbitrability - Equitable Estoppel, Arbitrability - Nonsignatories, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, CPR Speaks Blog of the CPR Institute, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, First Principle - Consent not Coercion, Gateway Disputes, Gateway Questions, International Arbitration, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), Loree & Loree, Practice and Procedure, Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Questions of Arbitrability, Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories, United States Supreme Court No Comments »
GE Energy Power

On June 1, 2020 the United States Supreme Court issued its 9-0 decision in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC. In an opinion authored by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas the Court held that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards did not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories. Associate Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion.

On the same day the Court decided GE Power, our friend and colleague Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, Newsletter of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (“CPR”), interviewed our friend and colleague Richard D. Faulkner and Philip J. Loree Jr. about the case and what it means for practitioners.

You can watch the video-conference interview HERE.

Also on June 1, 2020 Russ also wrote an excellent post about GE Energy for CPR’s blog, CPR Speaks, which explains in detail the background of the case and the rationale for the Court’s opinion, as well as Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion. You can read that post HERE.

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, arbitration-law, arbitration-related litigation, then please contact Phil Loree Jr., at (516) 941-6094 or at PJL1@LoreeLawFirm.com.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is a partner and founding member of Loree & Loree. He has 30 years of experience handling matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act and in representing a wide variety of clients in arbitration, litigation, and arbitration-related litigation.

Loree & Loree represents private and government-owned-or-controlled business organizations, and persons acting in their individual or representative capacities, and often serves as co-counsel, local counsel or legal adviser to other domestic, and international, law firms requiring assistance or support.

Loree & Loree was recently selected by Expertise.com out of a group of 1,763 persons or firms reviewed as one of Expertise.com’s top 18 “Arbitrators & Mediators” in New York City for 2019, and now for 2020. (See here and here.)

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Photo Acknowledgment

The photo featured in this post was licensed from Yay Images and is subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

California Supreme Court Upholds Default Judgment Confirming $414,601,200 Default International Arbitration Award

April 20th, 2020 Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Award Confirmed, Awards, California Supreme Court, Confirmation of Awards, Default Award, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Chapter 2, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, International Arbitration, Personal Jurisdiction, Practice and Procedure, Service of Process No Comments »
default judgment award confirm

On April 2, 2020 the California Supreme Court rejected a service-of-process challenge to a default judgment confirming a $414,601,200 international arbitration award. The parties agreed that notice could be given, and service of process made, by Federal Express (“FedEx”), and the Court held that the petitioner was not required to make service under the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, November 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638 (the “Hague Convention”).  

Facts and Procedural History

Party A, apparently headquartered in the U.S., and Party B, headquartered in China, entered into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”), which contemplated the two companies forming another. But that didn’t happen and Party A demanded arbitration against Party B under the arbitration agreement in the MOU.

Party A served the arbitration agreement by FedEx, as agreed. Party B did not appear in the arbitration and the arbitrator, after hearing evidence, entered a default arbitration award. Service of the arbitration demand was made by FedEx, and Party B was given notice of each of the proceedings that comprised the arbitration.

The Arbitrator made a default award against B in the amount of $414,601,200. Party A commenced confirmation proceedings in a California state court, serving B by FedEx, as expressly agreed in the parties’ agreement.

But Party B did not appear at the confirmation proceedings, and the Court entered a default judgment confirming the award.

Party B then challenged the default judgment, contending that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over it because service was made by FedEx, and not through the procedures prescribed by the Hague Convention.

The trial court rejected the challenge, the intermediate appellate court reversed, and the California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the intermediate appellate court.

The California Supreme Court’s Decision to Uphold the Default Judgment

The question before the California Supreme Court was whether the Hague Convention preempted the parties’ right to serve by their agreed method of service, FedEx. California’s highest court said the answer was “no.”

Continue Reading »