International Trading and Industrial Investment Company v. Dyncorp Aerospace Technology
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5954
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- International Trading petitioned to confirm an ICC arbitral Award against DynCorp under the FAA and New York Convention.
- 1998 Agreement appointed International Trading as DynCorp's service agent to establish and operate a Qatar branch, with duties including licensing and government dealings; Arabic version controls, but English terms considered too.
- Initial term was 60 months; DynCorp sought termination before the end of that period, while International Trading contended termination required 90 days after 60 months.
- ICC arbitration seated in Paris; substantive issues governed by Qatari law, procedural issues by ICC Rules; Award dated May 29, 2006 awarded damages, costs, and 5% interest.
- Qatar Court system reviewed the award, ultimately vacating or modifying aspects (discounting interest) before DynCorp sought international recognition in the U.S.
- This Court ultimately granted International Trading’s amended petition to confirm the Award, rejecting DynCorp’s arguments that the Qatari ruling or manifest disregard could bar recognition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article V(1)(e) bars recognition | Award issued in France; Cassation lack restricts U.S. review. | Qatari Cassation set aside; estoppel and comity require denial. | Denied; French authority did not negate U.S. confirmation |
| Whether the arbitrator's alleged manifest disregard bars recognition | No manifest disregard shown; arbitrator reasonably interpreted contract. | Qatar Cassation found manifest disregard; authority to deny. | Denied; manifest disregard not a basis under NY Convention; no clear disregard shown |
| Proper interpretation of Article V grounds and scope of review | NY Convention grounds are exclusive and narrow; cannot use FAA grounds here. | Article V(1)(c)/(e) permits broader review due to circumstantial facts. | Held that NY Convention grounds are exclusive; the award should be confirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons v. Toys 'R' Us, Inc., 126 F.3d 15 (2d Cir.1997) (NY Convention grounds are exclusive for refusals)
- TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C.Cir.2007) (reinforces narrow NY Convention review scope)
- Republic of Argentina v. BG Group, 764 F.Supp.2d 21 (D.D.C.2011) (contextual discussion on NY Convention framework)
- Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 (Supreme Court 1953) (manifest disregard origins predate NY Convention)
- Hall Street Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (Supreme Court 2008) (exclusive grounds for vacatur under FAA clarified)