Belize Bank Limited v. Government of Belize, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5587

In 2004 Belize guaranteed a loan to a health provider; after default Belize agreed in a 2007 settlement to pay but later refused amid domestic political controversy.
The Bank initiated LCIA arbitration in London; Belize largely declined to participate and LCIA appointed an arbitrator (Zachary Douglas) in Belize’s stead.
Belize later challenged Douglas’s continued service, arguing Matrix Chambers (of which Douglas was a member) had represented interests adverse to Belize and that Douglas should disclose or be disqualified.
An LCIA Division applied the British chambers rule (barristers are independent practitioners) and rejected Belize’s disclosure/disqualification requests as too attenuated. Belize withdrew and the tribunal awarded the Bank damages and interest.
The Bank petitioned in D.D.C. to confirm the foreign award; the district court granted confirmation, finding enforcement would not violate U.S. public policy under the New York Convention.
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding Belize failed to show that enforcement would offend the U.S. "most basic notions of morality and justice."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether enforcement of the LCIA award is contrary to U.S. public policy under NY Convention Art. V(2)(b)	Bank: enforcement is proper; LCIA process and award are valid	Belize: Douglas’s membership in Matrix Chambers created an appearance of bias akin to firm-wide conflict imputation and required disclosure or disqualification; enforcing the award would violate U.S. public policy	Held: Enforcement does not violate U.S. public policy; Belize failed to show the requisite "most basic notions of morality and justice" were offended
Whether the LCIA should have disqualified Douglas or required disclosures under U.S. FAA/ethical principles	Bank: LCIA acted reasonably under English chambers model; no disqualifying conduct	Belize: Commonwealth Coatings and related FAA precedent require disclosure when arbitrator has ties to a firm that did business with a party	Held: FAA domestic precedent is distinguishable because Matrix Chambers is an English chambers (independent barristers); mere membership without specific improper facts is insufficient to show evident partiality or to bar enforcement under the NY Convention

TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Article V(2)(b) public-policy defense construed narrowly)
Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 364 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2004) (high bar for public-policy refusal of foreign awards)
Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 393 U.S. 145 (1968) (arbitrator disclosure principles; Justice White concurrence narrows holding)
Al-Harbi v. Citibank, N.A., 85 F.3d 680 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (former firm’s unrelated representations produce at most marginal disclosure duties)
Belize Social Dev. Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize, 668 F.3d 724 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (framework for enforcing international arbitration awards)