In a decision dated 24 August 2018, the English Commercial Court (the “Court“) dismissed Dreymoor Fertilisers Overseas PTE Ltd’s (“Dreymoor“) application to continue an injunction preventing the enforcement of an order of a U.S. court granting discovery under section 1782 of the United States Code (the “Order“). The Order required one of Dreymoor’s employees to be deposed and produce evidence for use in various international proceedings by Eurochem Trading GMBH (“ECTG“) against Dreymoor. Dreymoor argued that enforcing the Order would constitute unconscionable conduct as it would interfere with its preparation for arbitration proceedings against ECTG.
The Court accepted that the enforcement of orders such as the Order could potentially be unfair, as they would effectively provide an opportunity to cross-examine the same witness twice. However, whether to injunct the enforcement of such an order required a careful case-by-case analysis. Based on various case-specific factors, the Court decided that it would not be unconscionable to allow ECTG to enforce the Order and dismissed Dreymoor’s application to continue the injunction.
The United States will lobby for changes to the investor-state dispute settlement (“ISDS”) provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) in the upcoming discussions to renegotiate the regional treaty.
ISDS reform is one of several “negotiating objectives” announced last month by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (the “USTR”), the federal agency with responsibility for US trade negotiations. The disclosure was made public in accordance with a 2015 statute that requires the USTR to release objectives at least 30 days before the start of formal trade negotiations. The NAFTA talks are set to begin in Washington D.C. on August 16.
On the agenda are modest proposals for increased transparency in the NAFTA ISDS process, such as the introduction of mandatory public access to NAFTA arbitration hearings, and submissions, and awards. Those amendments would be broadly in line with the recent trend toward greater public transparency throughout the investment treaty space. A more striking departure from current practice is suggested by the proposed introduction of a “right” of “non-governmental entities . . . to request making written submissions to a panel.” Continue reading
In a ruling handed down on July 11, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit resolved a circuit split that had sown legal uncertainty on the correct procedure for the enforcement in the United States of awards rendered under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
In Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd et al v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (2d Cir. 2017), a unanimous three-judge panel held that an ExxonMobil Corporation subsidiary could only enforce its USD 188 million ICSID award against Venezuela through the procedures set forth in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), and not—as the court below had held—through summary ex parte proceedings. The decision will likely have an impact on the reputation of the Southern District of New York's (SDNY) as a convenient enforcement forum for ICSID award creditors.
In a significant recent judgment, CBF Industria De Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc. (2d Cir. 2017), the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the Second Circuit) considered an arbitral award's preclusive effects and its ability to bind third parties. In the same decision, the Second Circuit also issued valuable guidance to the lower courts on the correct procedure and terminology for the enforcement of New York Convention awards issued abroad.
The Second Circuit handed down its initial opinion in January. However, in a rare move, the Court released a revised opinion earlier this month to "correct" its conclusion on a point of law in the first opinion. This post, unlike much of the online commentary of AMCI Holdings, refers exclusively to the Second Circuit's later opinion.