Belize Social Development Ltd. v. Government of Belize
399 U.S. App. D.C. 179
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- BSDL petitioned in the D.C. District Court to confirm and enforce a London LCIA arbitration award against the Government of Belize under 9 U.S.C. § 207 (FAA).
- The Final Award (Mar. 18, 2009) held the Belize–Telemedia agreement valid, and that Telemedia could recover over 38 million Belize dollars; Belize initially opposed enforcement.
- Telemedia assigned the monetary portion of the Final Award to BSDL on Mar. 20, 2009.
- Belize Supreme Court issued injunctions blocking enforcement of the Final Award outside Belize and extended them through July 2009; Belize sought to counter enforcement in U.S. court.
- The district court denied suspending the scheduling order and, on Oct. 12, 2010, stayed the enforcement petition pending Belize proceedings; BSDL appealed, seeking mandamus relief.
- The case involves the FAA’s enforcement framework under the New York Convention and the propriety of a stay when related Belize proceedings are ongoing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stay complied with the New York Convention grounds | BSDL: stay not authorized by Article V(VI); no setting aside/suspension application in England | Belize: stay justified under Article V(1)(e) and Art. VI | Stay improper; no valid NY Convention ground; mandamus warranted |
| Whether the district court exceeded its authority in issuing the stay | BSDL: no justification under FAA/Convention; improper exercise of discretion | Belize: stay within judicial economy powers | Yes, exceeded authority; mandamus appropriate |
| Whether Landis and related standards apply to indefinite stays | BSDL: indefinite stay without pressing need violates Landis | Belize: stay framed as pending foreign litigation | Indefinite stay improper; Landis requires balancing of interests |
| Whether mandamus is the proper remedy | BSDL: mandamus appropriate to compel proper enforcement review | Belize: mandamus unavailable due to lack of appellate jurisdiction | Mandamus appropriate to compel proper exercise of jurisdiction |
| Whether a remand rather than vacatur is appropriate | BSDL: relief should be immediate; remand acceptable | Belize: remand not discussed | Remand to district court for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C.Cir.2007) (limits on deferral of enforcement under NY Convention; grounds explicit in Article V(1)(e))
- Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons, W.L.L. v. Toys `R' Us, Inc., 126 F.3d 15 (2d Cir.1997) (grounds for refusal/deferral under Convention; interpretation of Article V/VI)
- Karaha Bodas v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak, 335 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.2003) (procedural law governing arbitration; competent authority abroad)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1985) (policy favoring arbitral dispute resolution; FAA conformity with NY Convention)
- In re Dellinger, 442 F.2d 782 (D.C.Cir.1971) (mandamus review of stay orders; exceptional relief limitations)
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1936) (indefinite stays require pressing need and balancing of harms)
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (stays generally not final unless effectively out of court)
- Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1943) (mandamus to confine a court to lawful jurisdiction)
- McSurely v. McClellan, 426 F.2d 664 (D.C.Cir.1970) (stay orders and need for justification)