Tag Archives: China

Case of the Day: CEEG (Shanghai) Solar v. LUMOS LLC

The case of the day is CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science & Technology Co. v. LUMOS LLC (10th Cir. 2016). CEEG was a Chinese solar panel manufacturer. LUMOS was a solar energy company in Colorado. The parties had a co-branding agreement under which LUMOS agreed to purchase at least a minimum number of solar panels from CEEG over three years and CEEG warranted that the goods would conform to the contract specification. The agreement provided: “all documentation, notices, judicial proceedings, and dispute resolution and arbitration entered into, given, instituted pursuant to, or relating to, this Agreement be drawn up in the English language.” And it provided for arbitration before CIETAC. On the other hand, it provided that each order for goods would be subject to subsequent purchase contracts. The parties did enter into a subsequent contract, which again provided for CIETAC arbitration but did not provide for the use of English. The CIETAC Rules provide that if

the parties have agreed on the language of arbitration, their agreement shall prevail. In the absence of such agreement, the language of arbitration … shall be Chinese or any other language designated by CIETAC having regard to the circumstances of the case.

Continue reading Case of the Day: CEEG (Shanghai) Solar v. LUMOS LLC

Lago Agrio: Ecuador Pays Arbitral Award

Ecuadoran Flag

Reuters is reporting that Ecuador has paid Chevron the $96 million awarded in a treaty arbitration ($112 million with interest). I’ve written several posts about this award and its aftermath. You may want to review my post on the DC Circuit’s decision affirming confirmation of the award and my post on the Hoge Raad’s decision rejecting Ecuador’s challenge to the award.
Continue reading Lago Agrio: Ecuador Pays Arbitral Award

Case of the Day: Plastech Holding Corp. v. WM Greentech

The case of the day is Plastech Holding Corp. v. WM Greentech Automotive Corp. (E.D. Mich. 2016). PHC sued WM Industries Corp., GreenTech Automotive Corp., and GreenTech Automotive Inc. JAC Motors, a non-party, sought to intervene in the case, but PHC opposed its motion, because the contract between JAC and PHC had an agreement calling for arbitration in Hong Kong. The motion for leave to intervene was allowed, and PHC amended its complaint to state a claim against JAC. PHC then served notices for depositions of eleven JAC witnesses who resided in Taiwan. The notices called for the depositions to take place in Michigan.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Plastech Holding Corp. v. WM Greentech