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
25www.fulbright.comApril2011them.Dyncorpsubsequentlysoughttoterminatetheagreementpriortotheexpirationof60monthsfromthedateoftheagreement.InternationalTradingopposedtheterminationandthematterwenttoICCarbitrationinParis.ThearbitratorruledinfavourofInternationalTradingandawardeditinexcessofUS1millionindamages.DyncorpappealedthearbitratorsdecisionuptothehighestcourtavailabletoitinQatartheQatariCourtofCassationwhichdeterminedthatthearbitratorfailedtofollowQatarilawbyimproperlyinterpretingthe1998Agreementinlightofthepartiesintentions.DyncorpalsosoughttohavetheawardsetasidebeforetheFrenchcourtsasPariswastheseatofthearbitrationbuttheParisCourtofAppealrejectedDyncorpsapplicationinNovember2010.DyncorpresistedInternationalTradingsapplicationtohavetheICCawardconfirmedintheU.S.ontwogroundsitheQatariCourtofCassationhadsetasidetheawardandInternationalTradingwasestoppedfromchallengingthecompetencyofthatcourttosetasidetheawardandiithearbitratoractedwithmanifestdisregardofthelaw.BothargumentswererejectedbytheU.S.DistrictCourt.TherstargumentfocusedonArticleV1eoftheNewYorkConventionwhichallowsacourttorefusetoconrmanawardiftheawardhasbeensetasideorsuspendedbyacompetentauthorityofthecountryinwhichorunderthelawofwhichthatawardwasmade.DyncorparguedthatInternationalTradinghadconsentedtothejurisdictionoftheQataricourtsandthuswasestoppedfromcontestingthattheQatariCourtofCassationwasacompetentauthorityunderArticleV1e.TheDistrictCourtrejectedthisargumentstatingthatforittorefusetoconrmtheawarditwouldhavetofindnotonlythattheawardwassetasidebyacompetentauthoritybutalsothatthecompetentauthoritywaslocatedinthecountryinwhichorunderthearbitrallawofwhichthatawardwasmade.ThecourtthereforeheldthattheonlycompetenttribunalswhocouldsetasidetheawardsoastopermitanargumenttobemadeunderArticleV1ewerethecourtsoftheseatofarbitrationnamelytheFrenchcourtswhichhadnotaccededtoDyncorpsrequesttovacatetheaward.ThesecondargumentputforwardbyDyncorpwasthattheawardcouldberefusedconrmationundertheNewYorkConventionduetothearbitratorsallegedmanifestdisregardofthelaw.ThecourtsetouttheoriginofthisstandardunderwhichaU.S.courthaspowertovacateanarbitrationawardundersection10oftheFederalArbitrationActandheldthattherootsofthatstandardhavenogroundingintheNewYorkConvention.ThecourtnotedthatwhilstjurisprudencedifferedonthefoundationalunderpinningsofthemanifestdisregardofthelawstandardnonethelessonecommonthemeemergedfromthedecisionsinwhichmanifestdisregardofthelawhadbeenconsiderednamelythatthestandardwasapplicabletoactionstovacateanarbitralawardandnottoproceedingstoconrmarbitralawardsundertheNewYorkConvention.AnarbitratorsmanifestdisregardofthelawwasnottobeconsideredanindependentandadditionalgroundfordenyingconrmationofanarbitralawardinthefaceoftheplainlanguageoftheNewYorkConventionwhichlistssevenprovisionsunderwhichenforcementmayberefusedonlyifoneofthespeciedgroundsisproven.ThecourtinanyeventwentontondthattherecordisdevoidofanyevidencethatthearbitratorinthiscaseactuallydisregardedQatarilaw.InhisjudgmentDistrictJudgeReggieB.Waltonconrmedtheaward.ThecaseisausefulrestatementoftherstprinciplesoftheNewYorkConventionandareminderofitsso-calledpro-enforcementbias.p