United States / 23 December 1974 / U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit / Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale de L’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA) / 74-1642, 74-1676
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit |
| Date | 23 December 1974 |
| Parties | Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale de L’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA) |
| Case number | 74-1642, 74-1676 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(2)(b) | V(2)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(b) |
| Source | 508 F.2d 969 |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Parsons & Whittemore Overseas (“Overseas”), an American corporation, and Societe Generale de L'Industrie du Papier (“RAKTA”), an Egyptian corporation, entered in a contract for the construction and operation of a paper mill in Egypt. The contract provided for arbitration under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC Rules”). RACTA initiated arbitration proceedings claiming damages for breach of the contract, and a final award was rendered in its favor. The award was confirmed by United States federal district court. Overseas appealed this decision and argued that: (i) the enforcement of the award would violate US public policy; (ii) the award represents a decision on matters not appropriate for arbitration; (iii) the Arbitral Tribunal denied Overseas an adequate opportunity to present its case; (iv) the award is predicated upon the resolution of issues outside the scope of the contractual agreement for arbitration, and (v) the award is in manifest disregard of the law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirmed the district court’s decision and confirmed the award. In dismissing the first objection, the Court of Appeals held that the public policy provision of Article V(2)(b) NYC should be construed narrowly, and the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may be denied only where enforcement would violate the forum state's most basic notions of morality and justice. The court also ruled that the arbitrability of the claim, pursuant to Article V(2)(a) NYC, was not affected by the fact that US foreign policy was somehow implicated in the dispute. The Court found no violation of due process under Article V(1)(b) NYC and found no excess of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Article V(1)(c) NYC. Finally, the Court declined to determine whether there was an implied defense of “manifest disregard of the law” under the NYC, instead holding that even if there was such a defense, Overseas had failed to establish it. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
