United States / 16 February 2011 / U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York / Ameropa AG (Switzerland) v. Havi Ocean Co. LLC (United Arab Emirates) / 10 Civ. 3240(TPG)
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Date | 16 February 2011 |
| Parties | Ameropa AG (Switzerland) v. Havi Ocean Co. LLC (United Arab Emirates) |
| Case number | 10 Civ. 3240(TPG) |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(2)(b) |
| Source |
online: PACER |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 2 August 2007, the Plaintiff, a Swiss company, and the Defendant, a United Arab Emirates company entered into a contract for sales of the Iranian sulphuric acid. A dispute arose and pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the contract, the Plaintiff commenced arbitration proceedings against the Defendant in the Arbitral Tribunal of the Chamber of Commerce of Hamburg in Hamburg, Germany. On 25 May 2009, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sought to enforce the award in the United Arab Emirates and was unsuccessful. The Plaintiff also sought to enforce the award before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Defendant opposed the enforcement on the ground that the enforcement of the award would be contrary to United States and New York public policy, arguing that the award originated from a violation of the United States sanctions against Iran. The District Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to confirm and enforce the award. As to the alleged violation of United States and New York public policy, the Court held that while Article V(2)(b) NYC does not specify what “contrary to the public policy” may mean, case law applying the public policy exception to enforcement provides guidance. Thus, according to case law, the public policy exception is granted “only where enforcement would violate the forum state’s most basic notions of morality and justice”. According to the Court, implications of foreign policy disputes with another country are not sufficient to satisfy this threshold, and in any event, the Plaintiff was a Swiss company and thus not subject to the United States sanctions. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
