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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/aliuslaw0038 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations THE U.S. LAW OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL AND INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRATION CHAPTER 2. ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT TOPIC 3. CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT § 2.29. Availability of Anti-Suit Injunction in Aid of Arbitration S.D.N.Y.2024. Cit. in sup. (citing § 2.29 of T.D. No. 4, 2015, which is now § 2.29 of the Official Text). Petitioner filed an application for confirmation ofan arbitration award it had obtained against respondent in connection with a dispute over the ownership of preferred shares in a gas company. Granting in part petitioner's application, this court held that the arbitrator did not err in awarding damages against respondent for intentional violations of an injunction issued in petitioner's separate bankruptcy proceedings. The court cited Restatement Third of the U.S. Law of International Commercial and Investor-State Arbitration § 2.29 in noting that a court had the authority to enjoin a party to an international arbitration agreement from initiating or maintaining litigation before another court only if the arbitration agreement was enforceable, the party being enjoined was bound by the arbitration agreement, and issuance of the injunction was appropriate considering, among other things, which court had the greater interest in ruling on the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. Eletson Holdings, Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd., 731 F.Supp.3d 531, 599. S.D.N.Y.2024. Cit. in sup. (citing § 2.29 of T.D. No. 2, 2012, which is now § 2.29 of the Official Text). Holding company filed a petition to confirm a final arbitration award against subsidiary of hedge funds that had previously owned preferred shares in holding company pursuant to agreements between the parties; the arbitration award confirmed that the preferred shares had been transferred by holding company to nominees that it had selected and were not owned by subsidiary, and awarded damages and fees to the nominees and against subsidiary and two nonparties that the arbitrator determined were subsidiary's alter egos. This court denied in part holding company's petition, holding that the arbitrator exceeded its authority in awarding damages against a nonparty based on the involuntary bankruptcy COPYRIGHT C2025 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.