United States / 29 May 1995 / United States, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia / Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee v. Hammermills, Inc. / 90-0169
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia |
| Date | 29 May 1995 |
| Parties | Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee v. Hammermills, Inc. |
| Case number | 90-0169 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee (“CBG”), a Delaware corporation, and Hammermills, a dissolved corporation under the laws of Missouri, which was subsequently dissolved, entered into a sale and purchase agreement. A dispute arose and arbitration was commenced pursuant to an arbitration agreement contained in the contract which provided for arbitration under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”). A sole arbitrator dismissed CBG’s claim against Hammermills and quantified Hammermills’ “normal legal costs”. CBG filed a motion to vacate the award arguing that: (i) it was denied due process within the meaning of Article V(1)(b) NYC because it did not receive adequate notice of the arbitrator’s intention to quantify legal fees against it and had no opportunity to be heard on the issue; and (ii) the arbitrator’s addition of the fee assessment subsequent to the approval of the award by the ICC Court violated the ICC Rules within the meaning of Article V(1)(c) NYC. Hammermills filed a motion for summary judgment of its motion seeking to enforce the award. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied CBG’s application to vacate the award and granted summary judgment for Hammermills’ motion for confirmation and enforcement of the award. The District Court found that CBG was accorded sufficient notice that the assessment of legal fees was at issue in the arbitration, thus, there had been no violation of due process within the meaning of Article V(1)(b) NYC. The District Court held that CBG had not established a defense to enforcement under Article V(1)(d) NYC, basing its conclusion on expert evidence submitted by both parties regarding procedures under the ICC Rules. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Pending Adobe Acrobat PDF |
