United States / 15 November 1983 / U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York / La Societe Nationale Pour La Recherche, La Production, Le Transport, La Transformation et la Commercialisation Des Hydrocarbures (Algeria) v. Shaneen Natural Resources Company, Inc. (US) / 83 Civ. 0676 (KTD)
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Date | 15 November 1983 |
| Parties | La Societe Nationale Pour La Recherche, La Production, Le Transport, La Transformation et la Commercialisation Des Hydrocarbures (Algeria) v. Shaneen Natural Resources Company, Inc. (US) |
| Case number | 83 Civ. 0676 (KTD) |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | IV | I | V(2)(b) | IV(1)(a) | I(1) |
| Source | 585 F. Supp. 57 |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Sonatrach, an Algerian entity, and Shaheen, an Illinois corporation entered into a contract for the sale of crude oil. An arbitration clause in the contract provided for the application of the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC Rules”) and for the application of Algerian law. Sonatrach had initiated a breach of contract action against Shaheen in the Supreme Court, New York County, and subsequently commenced arbitration in accordance with the ICC Rules. By the award dated 27 November 1981, the Arbitral Tribunal decided in Sonatrach’s favor, and Sonatrach applied for confirmation of the award in the United States. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed the award. It held that the Plaintiff had fulfilled the formal requirements for enforcement under Article IV(1)(a) NYC. It further noted that under Section 207 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), a Court must confirm the award unless there are applicable grounds to defer or deny confirmation under Article V NYC. With regards to the defense that the NYC was not applicable since Sonatrach was an Algerian entity, the Court held that the focus of Article I(1) NYC is not on the nationality of the party seeking to enforce an award, but on the situs of the arbitration. The Court also held that for the recognition of an award to violate United States public policy within the terms of Article V(2)(b), such recognition must offend “the forum state's most basic notions of morality and justice”, and dismissed the argument. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Pending Adobe Acrobat PDF |
