|
| Case name (Country / Date / Court / Parties) : | United States / 26 September 2012 / United States, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut / Nattel, LLC and NatTel, LLC v. Oceanic Digital Communications, Inc., ODC St. Lucia Limited, PCI Holdings Ltd., Oceanic Digital Jamaica Limited, S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC, S.A.C. Capital Management, LLC, S.A.C. Capital Associates, LLC, América Móvil S / 06–50421 | | Country: | United States
| | Court : | U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut United States | | Date of decision : | 09/26/2012 | | Case number : | 06–50421 | | Parties : | Nattel, LLC and NatTel, LLC v. Oceanic Digital Communications, Inc., ODC St. Lucia Limited, PCI Holdings Ltd., Oceanic Digital Jamaica Limited, S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC, S.A.C. Capital Management, LLC, S.A.C. Capital Associates, LLC, América Móvil S | | Source (citation, publication or docket) : | online: PACER <http://www.pacer.gov/> | | Summary of decision : | The Defendant, Ocean Digital Communications, Inc. (“Ocean Digital), relied on the NYC to compel one of its minority shareholders, Plaintiff, NatTel LLC (“NatTel”), to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement contained in its Articles of Association. The dispute concerned a discrete issue in the broader context of the bankruptcy proceedings concerning NatTel. NatTel opposed arbitration on the grounds that it was not bound by the arbitration provision because it was not a signatory to it and that, in any case, the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it did not provide a venue for the proceedings.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut compelled arbitration, staying the remaining, non-arbitrable claims, pending arbitration. It held that NatTel was bound by the arbitration provision and that the claims were arbitrable in light of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court remarked that by previously seeking and consenting to arbitration pursuant to the same clause, NatTel had waived its defenses based on its status as a non-signatory and the alleged unenforceability of the clause. Regardless, the Court determined that NatTel was bound by the arbitration agreement because under Bahamian law shareholders were automatically deemed to be signatories of the corporation’s Articles of Association. Furthermore, the absence of a venue in the arbitration agreement was not fatal according to the Court because it could designate one under the Federal Arbitration Act. Finally, the Court held that the parties’ dispute concerning the valuation of NatTel’s shareholding was arbitrable because such an action would not impede any of the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code. | | Applicable NYC provisions : | II ; II(3) | | Permalink : | http://www.newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1221 |
|
