In Re the Arbitration of Certain Controversies Between Getma International & Republic of Guinea, 191 F. Supp. 3d 43

Background

Getma sought confirmation and enforcement in D.D.C. of a €39 million CCJA arbitral award against the Republic of Guinea under the New York Convention (9 U.S.C. § 201).
The three-member CCJA arbitral tribunal sought to increase its collective fees to ~€450,000; the CCJA twice denied the tribunal authority to obtain increased fees and instructed fee-setting is exclusive to the CCJA.
The tribunal nevertheless solicited the parties and collected ~€225,000 from Getma; Guinea refused to pay and thereafter filed for annulment before the CCJA.
The CCJA, sitting en banc, annulled the award because the tribunal violated CCJA Arbitration Rules by soliciting increased fees outside CCJA authority.
Getma argued the annulment violated U.S. public policy and asked this Court to confirm and enforce the award despite the CCJA annulment; the Court declined.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a U.S. court may confirm an award annulled by the competent foreign authority	Getma: Annulment is "repugnant to U.S. public policy" and violates basic notions of justice, so U.S. enforcement is warranted	Guinea: CCJA is the designated forum under the parties' agreement; annulment by competent authority bars U.S. confirmation except in narrow extraordinary cases	Court: Denied confirmation — U.S. may decline to enforce only in narrow, high-bar public-policy cases; this is not one
Whether CCJA annulment was so arbitrary or unjust as to offend U.S. public policy	Getma: CCJA acted inconsistently, initially permitted communications and later reversed; rescission was unjust and caused prejudice	Guinea: CCJA followed its precedent and rules that fees are exclusively set by the court; reversal was within its discretion and not a U.S.-public-policy violation	Court: CCJA’s reversal and reliance on precedent is not equivalent to violating U.S. basic notions of morality and justice; erroneous reasoning alone insufficient
Whether alleged improper influence/bias (appointment and ex parte contacts) tainted annulment	Getma: Guinean Minister of Justice statements and appointment of a Guinean judge show bias and improper influence on CCJA	Guinea: Minister’s later affidavit disclaims the interview’s accuracy; judge’s appointment was lawful and occurred after Guinea’s last submission; no proof of ex parte contacts that affected outcome	Court: Allegations unproven and speculative; single judge’s nationality or post-hoc statements do not overcome unanimous en banc decision consistent with rules
Whether parties’ arbitration clause allowed contracting around CCJA fee rules	Getma: Parties agreed to bear arbitration costs and expected to pay increased fees; CCJA should have honored that contractual allocation	Guinea: Concession Agreement submitted disputes to CCJA rules, which assign fee-setting exclusively to CCJA; any agreement to the contrary is void under CCJA precedent	Court: Parties accepted CCJA Rules; clause did not override CCJA authority; enforcement would undermine principal precept that competent foreign setting-aside precludes U.S. enforcement

Key Cases Cited

TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir.) (narrow public-policy exception to enforcement of foreign-annulled awards)
Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1986) (judgment that clearly undermines public interest may violate public policy)
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1985) (strong federal policy favoring arbitration, especially international)
Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 364 F.3d 274 (5th Cir.) (erroneous legal reasoning typically not a public-policy basis to refuse enforcement)
Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale De L’Industrie Du Papier (RAKTA), 508 F.2d 969 (2d Cir.) (agreeing to arbitration entails relinquishing courtroom rights and accepting arbitration drawbacks)