Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
2011INTERNATIONALARBITRATIONREPORTAU.S.DISTRICTCOURTFIRMLYREJECTSANATTEMPTTOEXPANDTHEGROUNDSFORREFUSINGENFORCEMENTOFAFOREIGNARBITRALAWARDTHEDECISIONININTERNATIONALTRADINGANDINDUSTRIALINVESTMENTCOMPANYV.DYNCORPAEROSPACETECHNOLOGY24FionaTrustv.PrivalovtoThiscasearoseoutofacontractofaffreightmentCOAbetweenthedefendantandasubsidiaryoftheclaimant.TheclaimantguaranteedperformanceoftheCOAbyitssubsidiarybyendorsingthetermsoftheCOAratherthanbyenteringintoaseparatecontractofguarantee.AsaresultoftheendorsementtheclaimanthadeffectivelyagreedtoperformeachofthetermsoftheCOAiftheywerenotperformedbythesubsidiary.Asaresultofthenatureoftheendorsementtheclaimantsoughttoarguethatanycontractwhichmayhaveexistedbetweentheclaimantandthedefendantdidnotincludeanarbitrationagreement.Logicallytheclaimantcouldnothaveagreedtoperformitssubsidiarysobligationsunderthearbitrationclauseassuchobligationsarepersonaltothesubsidiary.HamblenJrejectedtheclaimantsargumentfindingthatbyendorsingtheCOAtheclaimanthadintendedtobeboundbythearbitrationclausecontainedtherein.Thisconclusionwasbasedinpartupontheprinciplelaiddownin20081LloydsRep.254thatrationalbusinessmenarepresumedtointendalldisputestobedecidedbythesametribunal.InthiscaseitwouldbesurprisingifthepartieshadagreedthatdisputesbetweenthedefendantandthesubsidiaryundertheCOAwouldbesubjecttoarbitrationbutthatanydisputeunderthelinkedguaranteewouldbedeterminedbyanunspeciedcourt.HamblenJfurtherdistinguishedthiscasefromthetypicaltwocontractcasesinwhichclearandexpresswordsofincorporationmustbeusedinorderforanarbitrationclauseinoneagreementtobedeemedtohavebeenincorporatedintoaseparatebutrelatedagreement.Inthiscasetherewasonlyasinglecommercialrelationshipalbeitthattheweretwoseparatecontractualrelationships.InterestinglyalthoughtheHighCourtengagedinafullrehearingoftherelevantevidenceasrequiredwhendeterminingachallengeundersection67oftheArbitrationActHamblenJheldthattheviewsofthearbitratorsshouldbeaccordedconsiderableweight.ThefactthatthearbitraltribunalhadfoundthattheclaimantwasboundbythearbitrationagreementappearsasaresulttohavebeenapositivefactorintheHighCourtreachingthesameconclusion.Inadecisionrenderedon21January2011theU.S.DistrictCourtfortheDistrictofColumbiaunequivocallyheldthatthegroundssetoutinthe1958NewYorkConventionontheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwardsaretheonlygroundsavailabletoaU.S.courttorefusetorecognizeorenforceaforeignarbitralaward.Intheabsenceofoneofthespecifiedgroundsthecourtwaswithoutauthoritytodenyconrmationofaforeignarbitralaward.InternationalTradinghadrequestedthattheU.S.DistrictCourtconfirmanICCarbitrationawardwhichithadobtainedagainstDyncorpaU.S.companyprovidinglogisticalsupportandservicestotheU.S.ArmedForcesinQatar.In1998DyncorpenteredintoanagreementwithInternationalTradingwherebyInternationalTradingwasappointedasDyncorpsserviceagentinQatar.Theagreementprovidedthatitshallbeforaperiodofsixtymonthsfromthedateofsignatureandshallcontinuethereafterunlessanduntilterminatedbyeitherpartygivingtotheothernotlessthan90dayspriornoticeexpiringonoranytimeaftertherstanniversaryofthedatehereof.TheagreementwasgovernedbyQatarilawandthepartiesagreedtosubmittoarbitrationundertheICCarbitrationrulesintheeventofadisputebetween