About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations July 2015 through February 2016 [1] (2015-2016)

handle is hein.ali/aliuslaw0015 and id is 1 raw text is: THE U.S. LAW OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION The Restatement of the Law, The U.S. Law of International Commercial Arbitration is still in draft form. Citations below are to Tentative Drafts CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS § 1-1. Definitions C.A.D.C.2015. Subsec. (e) cit. and quot. in sup. (citing and quoting § 1-1 of T.D. No. 2, 2012); com. (e) quot. in sup. (quoting com. (e) of § 1-1 of T.D. No. 2, 2012). Private telecommunications company brought an action against the government of Belize, seeking to enforce a foreign arbitral award that arose out of defendant's alleged breach of an agreement between defendant and plaintiff's predecessor in interest. The district court granted defendant's motion to stay pending resolution of related litigation in Belize. The court appeals reversed and remanded. On remand, the district court granted plaintiff's petition. This court affirmed, holding that the court could exercise jurisdiction over the action pursuant to the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Citing Restatement of the Law, The U.S. Law of International Commercial Arbitration § 1-1, the court explained that the arbitration exception applied because the agreement was commercial and was governed by the New York Convention. Belize Social Development Ltd. v. Government of Belize, 794 F.3d 99, 104. CHAPTER 4. POST-AWARD RELIEF TOPIC 3. CONDUCT OF POST-AWARD ACTIONS § 4-26. Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Post-Award Actions E.D.Pa.2014. Com. (e) cit. in sup. (citing com. (e) to § 4-26 of T.D. No. 3, 2013). Taiwanese supplier of computer components brought an action under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Pennsylvania state law against Pennsylvanian buyer, seeking to enforce an arbitration award plaintiff obtained in Taiwan. Granting in part defendant's motion for summary judgment, this court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration award under the Convention because Taiwan was not a signatory to the Convention. Citing Restatement of The U.S. Law of International Commercial Arbitration § 4-26, Comment e, the court nevertheless explained that, even though it concluded that the Convention did not apply to the arbitration award, the court had jurisdiction over the award pursuant to Pennsylvania state law. Clientron Corp. v. Devon IT, Inc., 35 F.Supp.3d 665, 676. u A mm1 For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.