United States / 27 October 1988 / United States, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York / Geotech Lizenz A.G. v. Evergreen Systems, Inc. / CV 88–1406
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York |
| Date | 27 October 1988 |
| Parties | Geotech Lizenz A.G. v. Evergreen Systems, Inc. |
| Case number | CV 88–1406 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | IV | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(2)(b) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Geotech, a Swiss company, entered into a partnership agreement with Evergreen, an American company. The partnership agreement referred to a license agreement which contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the rules of the Zurich Chamber of Commerce. A dispute arose and the parties allegedly entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). Subsequently, Geotech commenced arbitration and obtained a favorable award. Geotech applied for recognition and enforcement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Evergreen resisted enforcement, arguing that: (i) the arbitration agreement was “invalid” pursuant to Article V(1)(a) NYC because it had been superseded by the Settlement Agreement; (ii) the arbitrator decided matters that were beyond the scope of the arbitration pursuant to Article V(1)(c) NYC; (iii) Evergreen was not given proper notice pursuant to Article V(1)(b) NYC; and (iv) enforcement of the award would be against public policy pursuant to Article V(2)(b) NYC in light of arguments (i), (ii) (iii) and (iv) above. The District Court granted Geotech’s petition for enforcement of the arbitral award. The Court found that the requirements of Article IV NYC had been fulfilled and that Geotech submitted certified copies of the award and the agreement. The Court found no basis under the NYC to refuse enforcement of the award. First, the Court rejected the contention that the Settlement Agreement superseded the license agreement and rendered the arbitration agreement invalid under Article V(1)(a) NYC, finding that the parties had in fact not settled their disputes. Second, the Court found that Evergreen had been given adequate notice of the arbitration proceedings as it had been informed of every stage of the arbitration process and was given an adequate opportunity to participate within the meaning of Article V(1)(b) NYC. Third, the Court rejected Evergreen’s public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) NYC, holding that such a defense would only be applicable if enforcement of the award violated “the most basic notions of morality and justice” of the forum where enforcement was sought. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Pending Adobe Acrobat PDF |
