Letters Blogatory

The Blog of International Judicial Assistance | By Ted Folkman of Folkman LLC

Posts tagged “New York Convention

Case of the Day: Outokumpu Stainless v. Converteam

Posted on September 5, 2018

The case of the day is Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC v. Converteam SAS (11th Cir. 2018). Outokumpu had a steel factory in Alabama. Its predecessor in interest had a contract with a firm called Fives to buy three cold rolling mills for use in the factory. The contract had an agreement to arbitrate requiring arbitration in Düsseldorf under the ICC Rules. Fives subcontracted with GE Energy Conversion France SAS to provide motors for use in the mills. The motors failed, and Outokumpu sued GE in the Alabama state court. GE removed the case to the District Court and moved to dismiss and compel arbitration. The court denied Outokumpu’s motion to remand and granted GE’s motion to compel, and Outokumpu appealed.

+Read more

Case of the Day: Fiorilla v. Citigroup Global Markets

Posted on July 4, 2018

The case of the day is Fiorilla v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2018). John Leopoldo Fiorilla brought an arbitration against Citigroup in 2010. Fiorilla, a self-described “unsophisticated” investor, opened an account with Citi in 2006 to manage his $19.5 million life savings. He alleged that through “mismanagement and malfeasance,” Citi “eviscerated” his savings, which in the end were worth just $20,000. In 2012, Fiorilla’s lawyer accepted Citi’s offer to settle for $800,000, subject to negotiation of a mutually agreeable settlement agreement. But the parties disputed whether a real settlement had been reached or whether there were still material terms to be worked out. The tribunal rejected Citi’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and its motion to terminate the arbitration based on the…

+Read more

Case of the Day: Hardy Exploration v. India

Posted on June 12, 2018

The case of the day is Hardy Exploration & Production (India), Inc. v. Government of India (D.D.C. 2018). It’s a rare example of a US court refusing to confirm an international arbitral award on the grounds that it violates US public policy. Hardy had a contract with the Indian government to search for and extract hydrocarbons in the waters off India’s southeastern coast. If it found oil, it would have two years under the contract to determine if the find was commercially viable; but if it found gas, it would have five years. Hardy found hydrocarbons and claimed it had five years to make its determination, but the Indian government disagreed, claiming that Hardy only had two years. When two years had passed, the…

+Read more