Tag Archives: arbitration

Case of the Day: Flame S.A. v. Industrial Carriers, Inc.

The case of the day is Flame S.A. v. Industrial Carriers, Inc. (E.D. Va. 2014). This is the same case I wrote about on August 8, 2014. In the prior post, the issue was recognition of an English judgment Flame, a Swiss shipping and trading company, had obtained against Industrial Carriers for breach of a forward freight contract. In today’s post, the issue was whether another of the plaintiffs, Glory Wealth Shipping PTE Ltd., was entitled to maintain a maritime attachment of the M/V Cape Viewer on account of a default judgment from the Southern District of New York recognizing an English arbitral award Glory Wealth had obtained against Industrial Carriers. But the challenge to the attachment was not brought by Industrial Carriers, but by Freight Bulk PTE Ltd., which was not a party to the New York case and, it appears, not even a party to the underlying arbitration.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Flame S.A. v. Industrial Carriers, Inc.

Lago Agrio: Chevron Seeks Discovery From MCSquared

Update: I’ve made a minor correction in light of Mark Kantor’s helpful comment, printed below.

Remember MCSquared, the Republic of Ecuador’s US PR firm, which hired “ethically diverse” actors to protest at a Chevron meeting, and which initially failed to register as Ecuador’s agent under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. The MCSquared story was good comic relief, but it has now taken a more serious turn, as Chevron has brought an application for discovery under § 1782 seeking information from MCSquared for use in its BIT arbitration foreign enforcement proceedings and the Gibraltar case. Bonus: since MCSquared is located in New York, Judge Kaplan is presiding.
Continue reading Lago Agrio: Chevron Seeks Discovery From MCSquared

Case of the Day: Yukos Capital v. Samaraneftegaz

The case of the day is Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. Oio Samaraneftegaz (2d Cir. 2014). In 2004, Yukos loaned Samaraneftegaz almost 2.5 billion rubles. The loan agreement had an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration before the ICC. Samaraneftegaz defaulted, and Yukos demanded arbitration. Samaraneftegaz failed to participate, and eventually Yukos won a judgment for the full principal amount of the loan, plus more than 664 million rubles in interest and approximately $700,000 in fees and the costs of arbitration. The Russian courts refused recognition of the award, but the District Court in New York confirmed the award, entering a dollar-denominated judgment that used the exchange rate of the date of the award. Samaraneftegaz appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Yukos Capital v. Samaraneftegaz