|
Available documents (630)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
United States / 24 August 1990 / United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York / Standard Elec. Corp. v. Bridas Sociedad Anonima Petrolera, Indus. Y Comercial / 90 Civ. 0720 (KC)
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Date 24 August 1990 Parties Standard Elec. Corp. v. Bridas Sociedad Anonima Petrolera, Indus. Y Comercial Case number 90 Civ. 0720 (KC) Applicable NYC Provisions V | III | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(b) Languages English Summary International Standard Electric Corporation (“ISEC”), an American corporation, and Bridas Sociedad Anonima Petrolera, (“Bridas”), an Argentinean company, entered into a shareholders agreement. A dispute arose and arbitration was commenced in Mexico City pursuant to an arbitration clause in the agreement which provided for arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) under U.S. law. An arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of Bridas. ISEC filed a petition in the United States Court for the Southern District of New York to vacate the award. Bridas cross-petitioned the District Court and sought enforcement of the award under Article III NYC. ISEC opposed the enforcement on three grounds. First, it argued that it was unable to present its case within the meaning of Article V(1)(b) NYC. Second, it argued that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority by awarding damages based on equitable norms rather than legal grounds, in violation of Article V(1)(c) NYC. Third, it argued that enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of the United States pursuant to Article V (2)(b) NYC because “the secret procedures” utilized by the arbitrators in appointing an expert violated due process standards. The District Court dismissed SEC’s petition to vacate the award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted Bridas’ cross-petition to enforce the award. In so ruling, it found that the “competent authority” within the meaning of Article V(1)(e) NYC, for entertaining the action of setting aside the award, is the “country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made”. The Court found that the contested language “the country under the law of which that award was made” meant the procedural law of the arbitration and not the substantive law of the contract. Hence, only the courts of Mexico, where the arbitration took place, had jurisdiction under the NYC to vacate the award. The District Court found no basis under the NYC to refuse enforcement of the award. The Court found that SEC had waived its right to object to the tribunal’s decision to appoint an independent expert since it did not object to the appointment procedure at the time. There were therefore no grounds for non-enforcement pursuant to Articles V(1)(b) NYC and V(1)(b) NYC. The Court also found that the appointment procedure did not amount to a violation of U.S. public policy within the meaning of Article V(2)(b) NYC. In connection with the second defense under Article V(1)(c) NYC, the District Court found it to be a disguised “manifest disregard of law” defense, which it dismissed on the grounds that it was prevented under the NYC to reconsider the factual findings of the arbitral panel. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1157&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDFKorea / 10 April 1990 / Korea, Supreme Court of Korea / GKN International Training (London) Limited v. Kukje Trading Co., Ltd. / 89Daka20252
Country Korea Court Korea, Supreme Court of Korea Date 10 April 1990 Parties GKN International Training (London) Limited v. Kukje Trading Co., Ltd. Case number 89Daka20252 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | I(3) | II | II(2) | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Languages Korean Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6415&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFFrance / 22 November 1989 / France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris / Société Acteurs Auteurs Associés (A.A.A.) v. Société Hemdale Film Corporation / 10247/89
Country France Court France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (Court of First Instance of Paris) Date 22 November 1989 Parties Société Acteurs Auteurs Associés (A.A.A.) v. Société Hemdale Film Corporation Case number 10247/89 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(2) Summary On 27 February 1989, an award was rendered in London in favor of Hemdale Film Corporation. The losing party (Acteurs, Auteurs Associés - AAA) sought to have the award declared unenforceable in France on the grounds that it was contrary to international public policy. Hemdale Film Corporation challenged the admissibility of the action by arguing that such action is not provided under the NYC (or allowed under French law) and that Article V NYC subjects the refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards to a prior application for the recognition and enforcement of the said award. As a counterclaim, it requested the enforcement of the award. The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) reasoned that Article V NYC sets forth only the situations in which the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused by the "competent authority", but does not define the procedural regime, which shall be determined by the country in which the award is sought to be relied upon in accordance with Article III NYC. It thus held that the NYC cannot be interpreted as excluding such action if it is admissible under the laws of a given country and found that, under French law, such action is inadmissible. The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris then rejected the counterclaim, noting that Hemdale Film Corporation should request the recognition and enforcement of the award before the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris in accordance with Articles 1477 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=130&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFAustria / 17 December 1986 / Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) / K**** Ungarisches Außenhandelsunternehmen für Fabriksanlagen v. M**** Haus und Liegenschaftsverwaltungs GmbH / 3Ob32/86
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 17 December 1986 Parties K**** Ungarisches Außenhandelsunternehmen für Fabriksanlagen v. M**** Haus und Liegenschaftsverwaltungs GmbH Case number 3Ob32/86 Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3900&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFIndia / 19 April 1985 / India, High Court of Gujarat / Brace Transport Corporation of Monrovia, Bermuda v. Orient Middle East Lines Ltd and ors
Country India Court India, High Court of Gujarat Date 19 April 1985 Parties Brace Transport Corporation of Monrovia, Bermuda v. Orient Middle East Lines Ltd and ors Applicable NYC Provisions III Source AIR 1986 Guj 62; (1986) 1 GLR 77 | http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Summary Brace Transport Corporation (“Brace”) entered into a contract with the second respondent (“Orri”) for the sale of a vessel, which provided for arbitration in England. Orri nominated the first respondent (“Orient”) to purchase the vessel. A dispute arose and the matter was referred to arbitration, where an award was rendered in favour of Brace. After the award was rendered, Brace found out that the vessel had been sold to the third respondent, a company owned by the Indian Government, although the third respondent had yet to pay Orient and Orri. In the meantime, the third respondent sold the vessel, which was situated in India, to the fourth respondent to break it up. Brace applied to the Bhavnagar Court, in Gujarat, India, to enforce the award against the vessel. Further to its application for enforcement, Brace asked the Bhavnagar Court to restrain the fourth respondent from breaking up the vessel and the third respondent from making the payment to Orient and Orri. The Bhavnagar Court granted the two applications for interim relief sought by Brace. Orient and Orri appealed the decision on the ground that the Bhavnagar Court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the award, as required by Section 5(1) Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (the “1961 Act”). The High Court of Gujarat allowed the appeal, finding that the Bhavnagar Court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the dispute, as Orient and Orri did not conduct any business in Bhavnagar. According to the Court, the term “jurisdiction” in the phrase “any court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the award” referred to the requirements of jurisdiction under the Indian law of civil procedure. The Court rejected Brace’s argument that the above phrase only required the court to look at whether the subject-matter of the award was pecuniary. This was because, the High Court reasoned, Section 2 of the 1961 Act only applied to commercial relationships and, therefore, by definition the subject-matter of an award to which the Act applied would be pecuniary. In addition, the Court held that Section 4 of the 1961 Act, which the Court considered as “corresponding” to Article III NYC, provided that the rules of procedure of the place of enforcement governed the enforcement of an award. Accordingly, the Court noted, the Indian civil procedure rules on jurisdiction had to be considered in deciding whether the Bhavnagar Court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the award. reversed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1377&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFKorea / 12 April 1984 / Korea, Seoul Civil District Court / Cheil Steamer Co., Ltd. v. Construction Industry Co., Ltd. / 83Gahap7051
Country Korea Court Korea, Seoul Civil District Court Date 12 April 1984 Parties Cheil Steamer Co., Ltd. v. Construction Industry Co., Ltd. Case number 83Gahap7051 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6414&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF10 th meeting [E/CONF.26/SR.10 -E/2704 and Corr.1, E/CONF.26/2, E/COPNF.26/L.11 and L.21]- 12/09/1958
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Tuesday, 27 May 1958, at 11.25 a.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3402&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF11 th meeting [E/CONF.26/SR.11 - E/2704/Rev.1, E/2822 and Add.1-6, E/CONF.26/2, 6/3 and Add.1, 26/4, 26/7, E/CONF.26/L.6-L.31]- 12/09/1958
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Tuesday, 27 May 1958, at 2.45 p.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VI Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3403&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF16 th meeting [E/CONF.26/SR.16 - E/2704 and Corr.1, E/2822 and Add. 1-6, E/CONF.26/2, 26/3 and Add.1, 26/4, 26/7, E/CONF.26/L.10/Rev.1, L.12, L.13, L.41, L.42]- 12/09/1958
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Tuesday, 3 June 1958, at 11.45 a.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | V Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3408&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF2 nd meeting [E/CONF.26/SR.2 - Adoption of the rules of procedure (continued), consideration of the draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (E/2704 and Corr.1, E/2822 and Add. 1 to 6, E/CONF.26/2. 26/3 and Add.1, 26/4)]- 12/09/1958
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York on Wednesday, 21 May 1958, at 10.55 a.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1)(d) | V(2)(b) Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3394&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF23 rd meeting [E/CONF.26/SR.23 - E/CONF.26/L.60; Adoption and signature of the Final Act and Convention (E/CONF.26/8, 9, E/CONF.26/L.28, L.49, L.58, L.61)]- 12/09/1958
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Monday, 9 June 1958, at 3.30 p.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | III | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3415&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Final Act and Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards Date 10/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.14. Final Act and Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3392&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDFE/CONF.26/8 - Text of the Convention as as provisionally approved by the Drafting Committee on 9 June 1958- 09/06/1958
Date 09/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.11. Text of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards as Provisionally Approved by Drafting Committee 6-9 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | II | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3389&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDFE/CONF.26/L.61 - Text of the Convention as provisionally approved by the Drafting Committee on 6 June 1958- 06/06/1958
Date 06/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.11. Text of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards as Provisionally Approved by Drafting Committee 6-9 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | III | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3388&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 04/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.10. Text of Articles Adopted by the Conference: 4-6 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions III Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3380&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDFE/CONF.26/L.42/Corr.1 - Report on Article 1, paragraph 1 and article I2 of the draft Convention (E/2704 and Corr.1)- 02/06/1958
Comments Corrigendum of E/CONF.26/L.42: same jurisdictions in the two documents? Date 02/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.6. Reports of Working Party I: 2-4 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions III Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3369&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDFE/CONF.26/L.42 - Report on Article 1, paragraph 1 and Article 2 of the draft Convention (E/2704 and Corr.1)- 02/06/1958
Comments Report of Working Party n°1 established at the United Nations Conference on Internal Commercial Arbitration (its 7th meeting held on 23 May 1958) Date 02/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.6. Reports of Working Party I: 2-4 June 1958 Country Colombia | France | India | Israel | Italy | Turkey | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions I | III Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3368&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDFE/CONF.26/L.21 - Israel: proposed amendment to the United Kingdom amendment to Article 2 (E/CONF.26/L.11)- 27/05/1958
Date 27/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.2. Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations : 21 -28 May 1958 Country Israel | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions III Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3341&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 23/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.2. Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations : 21 -28 May 1958 Country United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions III Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3328&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 23/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.2. Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations : 21 -28 May 1958 Country Japan Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(b) Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3332&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 06/03/1958 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.4. Comments on the Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: Note by the Secretary-General: 6 March 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3309&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDFE/2822 - Report by the Secretary-General, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 31 Jan 1956- 31/01/1956
Comments Annex I: Comments by Governements (General observations and then comments on each article) Annex II: Comments by Non-Governmental Organizations (General observations and then comments on each article). Date 31/01/1956 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.2. Comments by Governments and Organisations on the Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: January 1956 - March 1958 Country Austria | Belgium | Brazil | China | Denmark | France | India | Japan | Korea | Lebanon | Mexico | Philippines | Switzerland Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | III | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English | French | Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3297&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDFE/2704 : E/AC.42/4/Rev.1 - Report of the Committee on the Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards (Resolution of the Economic and Social Council establishing the Committee, Composition and Organisation of the Committee, General Considerations, Draft Convention)- 28/03/1955
Comments Annex: Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards Date 28/03/1955 Classification (first level) D. Committee on the Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards Country Australia | Belgium | Ecuador | Egypt | India | Sweden | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions III | VII | VIII Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3423&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday, 2 March 1955, at 3 p.m Date 23/03/1955 Classification (first level) D. Committee on the Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards Classification (second level) D.1. Summary Records of the Committee on the Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards Applicable NYC Provisions I | III Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3428&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Annex: Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards Date 21/03/1955 Classification (first level) D. Committee on the Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards Country Australia | Belgium | Ecuador | Egypt | India | Sweden | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions III | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VIII Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3422&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF