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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (April 2023 - August 2023)

handle is hein.ali/aliuslaw0026 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2023 Citations THE U.S. LAW OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL AND INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRATION VOLUME 1 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS TOPIC 1. DEFINITIONS § 1.1. Definitions C.A.2, 2021. Quot. in case quot. in sup. (quoting § 1-1 of T.D. No. 2, 2012, which is now § 1.1 of the Official Text). Chinese companies petitioned for review of a decision by New York arbitral tribunal, hosted by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, alleging that the tribunal's award-in which it determined that a dispute between Mongolia and Chinese companies concerning ownership of mining rights was not arbitrable-should be reviewed de novo because the agreement between China and Mongolia concerning such disputes did not clearly assign the question of arbitrability to the tribunal. The district court denied petitioners' petition. This court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that the arbitration award did not result from an excess of arbitral power such that vacatur was appropriate under the Federal Arbitration Act. Quoting Restatement of the U.S. Law of International Commercial and Investor-State Arbitration § 1.1, the court explained that U.S. law applied to the award, because the Permanent Court designated the United States as the juridical home of the arbitration. Beijing Shougang Mining Inv. Co., Ltd. v. Mongolia, 11 F.4th 144, 159. C.A.2, 2017. Subsecs. (g), (i), (k), (1), (s), and (z) cit. in sup.; subsec. (aa) quot. in sup. (citing and quoting subsecs. (g), (i), (k), (1), (s), (z), and (aa) to § 1-1 of T.D. No. 2, 2012, which are now subsecs. (g), (i), (1), (m), (dd), (nn), and (oo) to § 1.1 of the Official Text). After Brazilian corporations received a foreign arbitration award against Swiss debtor for its failure to pay for pig iron that corporations had supplied, corporations brought an action to enforce the award against companies, among others, alleging that companies were alter-egos and successors-in-interest of the then-defunct award debtor. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. This court vacated and remanded, holding that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs were required to bring an action to confirm their foreign arbitral award before they could seek to enforce it. The court relied on Restatement of the U.S. Law of International Commercial and Investor-State Arbitration § 1.1, determining that the New York COPYRIGHT C2023 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.