United States / 02 November 2007 / United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York / Telenor Mobile Communications AS (Norway) v. Storm LLC (Ukraine) / 07 Civ. 6929 (GEL)
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Date | 02 November 2007 |
| Parties | Telenor Mobile Communications AS (Norway) v. Storm LLC (Ukraine) |
| Case number | 07 Civ. 6929 (GEL) |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(2)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(a) |
| Source |
524 F. Supp 2d 332, online: PACER <http://www.pacer.gov/> |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Telenor Mobile Communication AS (“Telenor”), a Norwegian telecommunications company, and Storm LLC (“Storm”), a Ukrainian company, engaged in a dispute over a shareholders agreement related to the corporate governance and management of Kyvistar G.S.M. (“Kyvistar”). Telenor commenced arbitration proceedings pursuant the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. On 1 August 2007, the Arbitral Tribunal issued a partial final award rejecting Storm’s jurisdictional objections and a final award in favor of Telenor. Telenor filed a petition to confirm the final arbitration award before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Section 207 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) while Storm cross-moved to vacate the award. Storm argued that (i) the arbitration agreement was void under Article V(1)(a) NYC; (ii) Storm was not able to present its case pursuant to Article V(1)(b) NYC, (iii) the arbitral tribunal exceeded its authority pursuant to Article V(1)(c) NYC, and (iv) the enforcement of the award would violate New York public policy pursuant to Article V(2)(b) NYC. The District Court granted Telenor’s petition and confirmed the arbitral award. Storm argued that the agreement was void because of the incapacity of one of the parties to enter into the shareholders agreement, and because Ukrainian courts declared the shareholders agreement void. The Court found that under the law applicable to the arbitration proceedings, determined by Article V(1)(a) NYC, the agreement was enforceable. The Court also held that Storm had the opportunity to present its case in accordance with the standard in Article V(1)(b) NYC, notwithstanding its refusal to appear in the arbitral proceedings. The Court further rejected Storm’s public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) NYC, holding that it would only be applicable if enforcement of the award would violate “the most basic notions of morality and justice” of the forum where enforcement was sought. Finally, the Court rejected the defense under Article V(1)(c) NYC, holding that the arbitrators did not act outside of the scope of their powers by ordering an anti-suit injunction. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
