United States / 07 September 2012 / United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York / Federal Insurance Company, as subrogee of Transammonia, Inc.v. Bergesen D.Y. ASA OSLO, as agents of the Norwegian Flag LPG/C “Hugo N” and its owner, General Gas Carrier Corporation, Limited / 12 Civ. 3851(PAE)
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Date | 07 September 2012 |
| Parties | Federal Insurance Company, as subrogee of Transammonia, Inc.v. Bergesen D.Y. ASA OSLO, as agents of the Norwegian Flag LPG/C “Hugo N” and its owner, General Gas Carrier Corporation, Limited |
| Case number | 12 Civ. 3851(PAE) |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | I | VII | I(1) | VII(1) |
| Source |
online: PACER |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | The Petitioner, Federal Insurance Company (“Federal Insurance”), sought confirmation of an arbitral award, which the Respondent, Bergesen d.y. ASA, Oslo (“Bergesen”), cross-moved to vacate, arguing that the award was in manifest disregard of the law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed the arbitral award, holding that Bergesen had not met the heavy burden of proving that the award was in manifest disregard of the law. The Court acknowledged that the arbitral agreement was governed by the NYC and Chapter Two of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) because it involved non-U.S. parties and was not “otherwise domestic in nature.” However, Chapter One of the FAA, the chapter on domestic arbitration, governed the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award because it was rendered in the United States. Under Chapter One of the FAA, manifest disregard of the law was a recognizable defense to the recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award. The Court emphasized that great deference was owed to arbitral decisions and that the grounds for judicial review were “severely limited”, i.e. the grounds enumerated under Section 10(a) of the FAA, and manifest disregard of the law. In denying the Respondent’s defense, the Court concluded that the arbitrators had not acted with “egregious impropriety” and that alleged errors in understanding or applying the law, or disregard or misapplication of evidence did not meet the high threshold required for vacatur under a manifest disregard standard. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
