China Minmetals Materials Import and Export Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Corporation

MATERIALS MINMETALS CHINA CO., EXPORT IMPORT AND LTD. v. CORPORATION, Appellant MEI CHI 02-2897,02-3542. No. Appeals, Court States United Circuit. Third Argued April 2003.

Filed: June New (argued), Jeffrey Weisenfeld

J. York, NY, Appellee. for Seiger, Braverman, Robert C. L. David (argued), E. Miller III, Esq., Richard Philadel- Kaskey Caprara, & Braverman PA, for Appellant. phia, FUENTES, and ALITO, Before: GREENBERG, Judges. Circuit COURT OF THE OPINION GREENBERG, Judge. Circuit court before this comes on This matter Corporation Mei by the Chi appeal on an Mei”) order' (“Chi court’s the district from 11, 2002, the motion granting June entered Export & Co. Import Minmetals of China and enforce (“Minmetals”) to confirm from the and award foreign arbitration 26, 2002, in August judgment entered Chi Mei against of Minmetals favor $4,040,850.41. the rea- For the amount dis- herein, we vacate will sons stated and will judgment order trict court’s proceedings. further for the case remand

I. BACKGROUND Jersey corporation is a New Chi Mei formed corporation Minmetals is People’s the laws existing under (“PRC”).1 Production of China Republic Corp. of Trading and Materials Goods (“Shantou”), also is S.E.Z. Shantou action, is a cor- likewise in this implicated theless, undisput- are we the facts summarize enforced as the district 1. Inasmuch except it did not opinion, ed noted. without Never- case. in this explicitly find facts poration existing formed and under the subsequently was to transfer the funds to laws of the PRC. accounts Shantou designated, and Chi Mei did By contrast, so. Minmetals asserts dispute This arises out of a transaction that the transaction involved an Mei, Minmetals, involving Chi and Shan- purchase electrolytic nickel cathode al- tou. The dispute every almost de- loy, it issued letters credit worth several transaction; tail of the for example, Chi million Mei, dollars to Chi and Chi Mei Mei to it refers as a “currency conversion knowingly submitted to a New York bank transaction”2 while calls it numerous false documents evidencing the contract purchase by Minmetals of sale, including invoice, weight packing electrolytic Moreover, nickel cathode. list, quality certificate, and bill of lading, in do not parties’ find the descriptions of the order to collect funds under the letters of clear, transactions to be completely a prob- credit. Minmetals contends that Chi Mei lem that fortunately does not impede our did not deliver the goods described ability to decide this case. Chi argues Mei contracts. that it never intended agreed nor to sell anything to alleges Minmetals and that the Two contracts submitted to a bank contracts on which Minmetals relies were the PRC that purport to be contracts for forged. hand, On the other Minmetals the sale of by nickel Chi Mei to Minmetals argues that Chi Mei failed to deliver the for a sum equal to the amount of the goods it promised to sell receiving after (the letters credit “Sale of con- Goods payment by on a drawing line of credit of tracts”) are central to this dispute. Chi

several million dollars. Mei alleges that the two contracts were According Mei, to Chi on or about June entirely fraudulent, containing a forged 12, 1997, Shantou sought out Chi Mei to signature of a nonexistent Chi Mei employ- discount a certain sum of U.S. dollars. ee as well as a forged corporate stamp. J.A. at 119.3 Chi Mei orally agreed to Chi Mei alleges further it un- provide discounting services for a .7% com- aware of the existence of these contracts mission of the amount of U.S. dollars be- until it appeared at the arbitration that is fore discount. Minmetals was to obtain subject dispute. The contracts funds way of a letter of credit provide for binding arbitration of any dis- obtained from China, the Bank of as the putes in connection with the be- contracts PRC apparently authorized Minmetals to fore the China International Economic and engage in currency conversion transac- Trade (“CIE- Arbitration Commission tions. asserts, Chi however, Mei that TAC”). App. at 33. Shantou did not disclose its relationship Minmetals According Mei, it it it that was Chi performed un- its

aware of Minmetals’ role duties transaction under the oral agreement governing until after the delivery of the proceeds the currency discounting transaction and the letter of credit to Shantou. Chi Mei delivered the funds to Shantou after col 2. The imposes PRC strict president restrictions on for- during period, the relevant which eign transactions, currency allowing only au- submitted the district opposition thorized parties currency convert PRC Minmetals' motion to support and in enforce (“RMB”) into United States dollars. of Chi Mei's motion to dismiss. See J.A. 115-26. 3. Chi sets forth Mei its version of the facts primarily Luo, in the Jiaxiang affidavit of its sought, Minmetals the relief deny tion to then Shantou commission.4 .7%

lecting its affi- documents submitting numerous funds, refus misappropriated allegedly Jiaxiang davits, affidavit including the Minmetals.5 them to any of to remit ing Minmetals Luo, president. Mei the Chi 1997, November about On or contrary affidavits. did not submit be proceeding an arbitration initiated Minme-tals argument heard oral The district court pursuant Mei Chi against CIETAC fore and, conducting an without the motions contained clauses en- on June evidentiary hearing, Mei re Chi contracts.6 Sale Goods motion Minmetals’ granting tered order jurisdic CIETAC’s objected peatedly and de- and enforce the to confirm it, nevertheless, appeared before but, tion court, cross-motion. nying Chi Mei’s the contracts submitting evidence explaining opinion file an did not clause on contained which and, do not accordingly, we its decision Chi forged. relied were of the order. entry the basis for its know flouting Minmetals’ argued Mei also 26, 2002, court en- district August On recovery prevent its should law of Chinese in favor Minmetals judgment tered The arbi Id. at 44-45. in the arbitration. $4,040,850.41. appeal This amount of Mei failed to held Chi tration tribunal followed. that the con showing of its burden meet and that even forged, were tracts at issue AND STANDARD II. JURISDICTION had been stamp and signature if Chi Mei’s OF REVIEW actions, docu providing such forged, its jurisdiction court had The district drawing York bank to the New ments § and 28 U.S.C. 9 pursuant to U.S.C. 203 credit, “confir constituted on the letters 1331, jurisdiction pursuant § we have contracts.” validity of the mation Ordinarily, in re § 1291.7 to 28 U.S.C. 2000, 30, the CIE- August at 49. On Id. confirming court’s order viewing district an amount Minmetals panel awarded TAC award, review the we would an arbitration million. in excess of $4 findings for clear factual district court’s de novo. 2001, legal and its conclusions moved error Minmetals July Chicago, Kaplan, Inc. v. confirming order and First for an district court 1926, 938, 947-48, 115 S.Ct. Chi Mei 514 U.S. arbitration award. enforcing the (1995). Here, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 a cross-mo- and filed motion opposed the Luo, Jiaxiang Mei According the Chi 6. appeal, counsel for argument 4. At oral by Minme- president, time that the contracts suggested for the inso- submitted Chi first Mei may some have been from the far as were in fact different there tals to CIETAC agreement involved com- goods, that to sell presented to Bank of China. two contracts East) (Far Development him, Hexin pany called all four App.- According at 124-25. Ltd., argument This alternative not Mei. Chi forged fraudulent. Id. contracts were analysis opinion. our does not affect appeal, the first Chi Mei two notices of 7. filed filed crim- that Minmetals 5. Chi Mei indicates following order and the June 2002 against Chi Mei in the PRC complaints inal entry judgment. Be following second after Mei was exonerated Chi and Shantou. appeal supplies a notice of cause the second Depart- Beijing Police inquiry formal ment, all the for us consider jurisdictional basis not criminal did result issues, the effect of the we need not consider Lin, president charge, while Weizhe appeal. Livera v. First Nat'l notice of See first Shantou, criminal of- convicted of was (3d Bank, Cir. 879 F.2d State with this in connection of conversion fense 1989). at 122. matter. Id. court, made, any explicitly, may as the at least to the arbitration inasmuch fact, we, in findings apply any having jurisdiction did not make court event, legal any deciding are the case on a chapter under this for an order confirm- basis, review plenary. our entire ing against any the award as other party to the arbitration. The court shall con-

III. DISCUSSION firm award unless it finds one of the grounds for recog- refusal or deferral of A. FORGERY ALLEGATIONS nition or enforcement of the award spec- primary The issue this case is ified in the said Convention. en properly whether district The foreign incorporated Convention is panel’s forced into the § panel, appears that it FAA 9 U.S.C. 207 and finding award where that rejected jurisdiction, argu § had Chi Mei’s U.S.C.A. historical n. Article ofV providing provides: the documents the Convention forged arbitration were so there Recognition and enforcement of the writing exhibiting valid an intent' refused, award at the request actually This issue involves arbitrate. invoked, against the party whom it is First, questions. two distinct we must only if furnishes to the com- foreign consider whether petent authority recognition where the might regardless of be enforceable sought, proof and enforcement is that: validity of the arbitration clause on (a) re- body jurisdic which the foreign rested its were, to in article II ferred under the regard, points tion. In this out them, applicable law under some the Recognition Convention on agreement or the is incapacity, said Foreign and Enforcement of Arbitral not valid under the law to which the (the “Convention”) Awards differs some subjected or, failing have general what from of the provisions the thereon, any indication under the law (“FAA”), par Federal Arbitration Act and of country the where the award was ticularly argues that Article V of the Con made; or requires foreign vention enforcement of a very all but handful of limited awards

circumstances, of not one which is the (c) The award deals with difference necessity for there to be valid written contemplated by falling not not or agreement providing for arbitration. If within the of terms the submission conclude, however, we those only arbitration, or on it contains decisions awards based on a valid beyond scope of the matters sub- enforceable, arbitrate are must also arbitration, that, provided mission consider who makes the ultimate determi if on the decisions matters submitted validity nation of the of issue. the clause at separated to arbitration can be from Thus, considering question, the second submitted, not so part those role, we must examine the district court’s on award contains decisions if any, reviewing foreign arbitral submitted matters to arbitration panel’s finding there was a valid- enforced; recognized be or agreement to arbitrate. (d) composition The of the arbitral au- provides: §

9 U.S.C. 207 or thority procedure the arbitral was years after an not in with the Within three arbitral accordance or, parties, failing agree- award under such falling the Convention is State, Contracting court of 3. The in accordance ment, in a matter of an action seized when the arbitra- country where law of have made to which respect or place; tion took meaning of this agreement within the shall, of one of article, request anof and enforcement Recognition arbitration, parties to refer the parties, if the refused may also be arbitral agreement is it finds that the said unless country authority in the competent void, incapable of or inoperative null is and enforcement recognition where being performed. that: sought finds article of that each argues the differ- (a) matter of subject The aspect a different governs the Convention of settlement capable is not ence II sets procedure of coun- the law that —Article under arbitra- compelling for grounds forth try; or procedure tion, Article IV describes (b) enforcement recognition The seeking required for enforcement contrary to the be the award would award, provides that once and Article V country. policy of public made, a contracting the courts award is for procedure Article IV establishes one award unless enforce that state must of an award seeking enforcement nonenforcement grounds narrow for of the Article V: Minme- according to This proven. and en- recognition 1. To obtain V,'un- Article tals, only involves therefore preceding forcement mentioned requirement in its view “the der which recogni- article, applying the party necessary is not valid written shall, at the time and enforcement tion Br. at 6. Chi Appellee’s for enforcement.” supply: application, hand, Mei, argues that the other (a) original duly authenticated The a whole must read Convention thereof; copy certified duly award or a explicitly implicitly V both (b) referred original valid written Article II’s incorporates copy duly certified II or to in article addition, Min- agreement requirement. thereof. panel’s arbitration argues that the metals validity of the arbitration as to the decision is unless conclusive provides: Article II which, not argues, is exception applies, V recog- Contracting State shall Each Mei, ar- part, for its here. Chi case under writing nize an had an obli- gues that the district court undertake to submit parties which the independently the va- to determine gation which or differences arbitration all lidity agreement. of the between arise have arisen or legal rela- of a defined respect them in 1 of (chapter FAA the domestic Because not, contractual or FAA) tionship, brought whether actions applicable is subject capable matter concerning 2 (chapter the Convention conflict, FAA) arbitration. by they settlement are not to the extent 208, heavily on § relies Chi Mei writing’ U.S.C. ‘agreement 2. The term Op- in First Supreme a con- Court’s decision clause in include an arbitral shall Kaplan, 514 U.S. Chicago, Inc. v. tions agreement, tract or arbitration 1920, 938, 131 L.Ed.2d 985. in an S.Ct. or contained signed by parties FAA, involved domestic First telegrams. exchange letters Convention, not the but involved facts sim would have settled in Chi Mei’s favor both ilar to those in this case. Op First question of the need for a valid agree- tions, here, the district court confirmed ment to arbitrate and the question of the an arbitration award parties where the district court’s role reviewing an arbi- against whom the award was enforced had trator’s determination of arbitrability when argued both in the arbitration proceedings an award is sought to be We, enforced. and before the district court that they therefore, had must determine whether First not signed the document containing the Options provides the rule of decision in a 941, clause. Id. at at S.Ct. case involving enforcement of a foreign 1922. In that the Court held that the arbitration award under the Convention. district court and not the panel Our cases involving enforcement must decide the question of arbitrability— under the Convention largely have arisen is, question whether a certain II, under Article with one seeking an dispute subject to arbitration under the order compelling another party to arbi terms of a given agreement —unless a dispute. trate cases, Under those it is parties clearly and unmistakably have clear that if Minmetals had pro initiated agreed that the arbitrator should decide ceedings in the district court to compel arbitrability. 943, Id. at 115 S.Ct. at 1923- arbitration, the court would have been ob words, 24. In Court, other relying on ligated to consider Chi Mei’s allegations principle that “a can be forced the arbitration clause was void be only arbitrate those issues it specifically cause underlying contract forged. agreed has to submit to arbitration,” id. at See Sandvik v. Advent Int’l Corp., 220 945, 115 S.Ct. at that, held unless the (3d Cir.2000). 104-07 is, of It district court found that there was clear course, true FAA, of which the and unmistakable evidence parties that the part, Convention is a establishes a strong agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, the dis policy federal in favor of arbitration and trict court independently must determine that the presumption in favor of arbitra whether the agreed to arbitrate the “ ” tion ‘special carries force’ when interna merits of the dispute, 943-45, id. at 115 tional commerce is involved. Id. at 104 S.Ct. 1923-25. (quoting Mitsubishi Corp. Motors v. Soler Chi Mei therefore argues that, under Inc., Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. Options, First the district court should 631, 3346, 3356, 105 S.Ct. 87 L.Ed.2d 444 have concluded that (1985)). did Nonetheless, we have stated that “ agree to and, arbitrate arbitrability8 faced the ‘liberal policy federal favoring arbi presented evidence Chi Mei agreements tration ... is at poli bottom a opposition to enforcement and the lack of cy guaranteeing the enforcement pri ” evidence in response by submitted Minme- vate arrangements,’ contractual id. at 105 tals, the district court should have found Mitsubishi, (quoting 625, at 473 U.S. 105 that the dispute was not arbitrable 3353), because at S.Ct. and that because “arbitra the contract had been forged, or at least is a contract, tion matter of ... no arbitra should have conducted hearing a to resolve may tion be compelled in the absence of an that issue. If this had case arisen under arbitrate,” (cit to id. at 107-08 FAA, the domestic First Options clearly Techs, AT ing & T v. Inc. Communica- 8. point any Minmetals does not evidence fested an intent to arbitrability. arbitrate supporting parties a conclusion that the mani-

282 Am., 643, 648, under appropriate Corp. 475 U.S. Prima Paint tions Workers of Co., 1415, 1418, 395, Mfg. v. Flood & Conklin 388 U.S. 89 L.Ed.2d 648 106 S.Ct. (1967).9 1801, (1986)). 87 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 S.Ct. “[b]ecause We concluded both Sandvik, affirmed district In we and the FAA court [Convention] compel of motion to arbi- court’s denial agreement to must decide whether an arbi con- the district had tration where trate exists before it order arbitra it had to determine whether cluded that tion, the District Court was correct de in fact had entered into bind- termining that it must decide whether [the before it could ing agreement to arbitrate attorney’s] signature Advent before bound In Id. at 104-07. compel arbitration. 107; it order at could arbitration.” Id. see dispute as to whether the there was a 270 Ag, also Elec. Co. v. Deutz F.3d Gen. containing (3d Cir.2001) (affirming 152-56 dis binding agreement was defendant compel trict in case court’s decision that its attor- corporation alleged where arbitra- international arbitration submit ney signed proper the contract without bility jury question finding after arbitra 101-02. authorization. Id. at We relied tion application clause’s defendant am Mills, in Par-Knit Inc. v. on our decision biguous). Notably, supported although we (3d Co., 51 Stockbridge Fabrics 636 F.2d the “null our conclusion with references to Cir.1980), in which we stated: language and void” II of the to a or- Before a lawsuit can be Convention, we based our decision on and be deprived dered to arbitrate thus straightforward notions of contract law court, day of a there should be interpretation rather than on technical unequivocal agreement to that express, treaty. language of the See Sand If is doubt as to effect. there whether vik, 220 F.3d at 105-10. exists, matter, such an timely demand, upon proper case, however, In this an arbitral a jury. Only should be submitted to decision, already tribunal has rendered a genuine when there no issue fact explicit findings concerning and has made agree- concerning the formation contract, alleged forgery includ the court decide as mat- should ing goal the arbitration clause. “The did ter of law or did not Convention, principal purpose agreement. enter into such an underlying adoption American and imple Mills, (quoting Id. at Par-Knit it, encourage of was mentation rec 54). ognition and enforcement of commercial Sandvik, drew a be- agreements distinction international unify tween contracts asserted be void or contracts and to the standards nonexistent, agreements the case are there is which to arbitrate ob here, alleged the case and contracts to be served arbitral awards are enforced voidable, arbitration, signatory in which case includ- Scherk v. countries.” Alber Co., ing question, may arbitration of the fraud to-Culver n. U.S. Paint, plaintiff fraudulently. Prima brought Supreme 9. In an ac- The Court held that tion to rescind a contract with defendant challenge the arbitrator should decide the on basis of fraud in the inducement. The on fraud in the of based inducement the en- dispute defendant moved to arbitrate on Paint, Prima tire contract. 388 U.S. 403- clause basis arbitration contained in 04, at S.Ct. 87 alleged the contract to have been induced

283 Petrolera, 2449, 15, Comercial, 270 nima 2457 n. 41 L.Ed.2d Industrial Y S.Ct. (1974). concerning 172, opinion (S.D.N.Y.1990); In an oft-cited F.Supp. 745 181-82 foreign a enforcement of Brandeis Intsel v. Ltd. Calabrian Chems.

award, for the Sec Appeals (S.D.N.Y. the Court 160, Corp., F.Supp. 656 167 “general pro-en ond noted the Circuit 1987); Berg, Albert Jan van den New The Convention,” informing bias forcement York Arbitration Convention of 1958: To “basic explaining Convention’s wards a Uniform Interpretation Judicial procedures was to liberalize for en thrust (1981)). 265 forcing foreign arbitral awards.” Parsons interpretation This narrow of the Con- & Overseas Co. v. Whittemore Societe in keeping § vention is 207 9 U.S.C. Papier, de L’Industrie du 508 Generale unequivocally provides which that a court (2d Cir.1974). 969, F.2d 973 foreign in which of a enforcement arbitra- Consistently policy with the favor tion is sought award “shall confirm foreign ing enforcement grounds unless one finds awards, strictly courts have limited defens recognition for refusal or or deferral es to enforcement to the defenses set forth enforcement of award specified in the Convention, gener in Article V of the added). (emphasis said Convention.” ally nar exceptions have construed those absence of a written ar- See, 973-77; rowly. e.g., id. at see also specifically ground ticulated as a for refus- Therapiegeraete

Biotronik Mess-und al to an enforce award under Article ofV & GmbH Co. v. Med. Instrument Medford fact, the Convention. the Convention Co., 133, (D.N.J. 136, 415 140-41 F.Supp. only an refers to in in “agreement writing” 1976). Appeals As the Court of for the II, requires a court aof noted, Second Circuit has is now “[t]here contracting state to order arbitration when that, in holding considerable caselaw presented with an in writing in, action to confirm award rendered arbitrate, unless it finds that of, jurisdiction, foreign the law a void, inoperative, or incapable being grounds for relief enumerated Article Y distinction, performed. according This only are grounds Convention Minmetals, is enough differentiate this setting available for an arbitral aside case from cases like First Options, which Sons, award.” Ahmed Alghanim & Yusuf FAA,10 arose under the well from as Us, Inc., Toys W.L.L. v. ‘R’ 126 20 F.3d Deutz, cases like Sandvik and which arose (2d Cir.1997) added) (emphasis (citing M & II. under Article Co., v. Corp. C Erwin Behr & GmbH (6th Cir.1996); hand, F.3d On Int’l Stan the other the crucial principles v. Corp. dard Elec. Sociedad Ano- all Bridas common to of these decisions—that ar- 10. As Minmetals notes, grounds proceeding for refus enforcement before district court”), al to enforce an award are broader under the while the Convention does not. Nei- FAA than under the Convention. Further supplies ther of these distinctions in itself more, repeatedly the FAA refers need to the convincing apply reason refuse First agreement, for a written see MCI Telecommu Convention, to case under how- Indus., Inc., Corp. nications v. Exalon ever, points inasmuch as neither these (1st Cir.1998) (citing numerous any analy- played Supreme role Court’s provisions “writing” of the FAAthat refer to a Options. sis in First The Court based its relying statutory language on largely straightfor- decision that case holding “determining whether there is principles ward contract rather than on written to arbitrate the controver statutory analysis. technical sy question step is a first and crucial which, we have as place already taken a that contract of matter is a bitration freely participated. determined, Slaney only those to arbitrate be forced

party can Slaney suggests Thus, to that submit fact to agrees specifically it issues to arbi- agreement court the district is no written that there suggest arbitration — II of the inde- Article trate, by to determine as obligation mandated an here had to irrelevant. agreement is York the existence New Convention pendently U.S.A., Co., panel arbitration & though See, an Caro e.g., even Coutinho arbitrate Inc., had already rendered Trading WL foreign state Marcus Inc. v. in a con- (D.Conn. argument March Minmetals’ award, n. 4 unless at *5 V Article nature of between 2000) a the exclusive difference cerning (recognizing a mean- provides principle to other seeks a or some where the situation we cases distinguish to reason a situation ingful arbitration compel whether Thus, consider have cited. an arbi- set aside attempts to one which Minmetals, by issued). cited cases Convention already been has that tral award stricter II Article contrast which the differ- is here highlighted isWhat reason compelling V, a provide Article Conven- II of the Article ence between from Sandvik case this distinguish should tion, when court dictates which Furthermore, ques- is some there Deutz. arbitration, and to an compel of international culture tion whether narrow circum- Y, lists the Article structure, informs arbitration, which decision an arbitration in which stances Convention, pro- of policy history, the Convention signatories between case distinguishing for a basis vides be enforced. not should Options. from First apply on to went The court at 591. Id. arewe question, the first regard to With holding law contract rules ordinary Slaney v. International by convinced not argu- from estopped was plaintiff that Federation, 244 F.3d Athletic Amateur written binding aof that lack ing Ahmed Cir.2001), by (7th Yusuf because enforcement precluded agreement Minmetals, that by cited both Alghanim, arbitra- freely participated had she aof lack V the Article from the absence that she argued had not proceeding, tion for ground as a written valid dur- clause to the agreed never to Chi is fatal to enforce refusal let and had proceedings, ing those arbi- forgery that Mei’s contention she by when do so pass opportunity en- its preclude should tration Id. The proceedings. those from withdrew Ap- Slaney, the Court forcement. certain defenses considered also court held Circuit peals Seventh rejected but Article V enforcement be en- award should foreign at 592-94. Id. of them. all ar- her despite plaintiff against the forced Slaney for the relies “agree- not a valid that there gument a valid written lack proposition II required writing” ment in to en- irrelevant is to arbitrate explained: court of the Convention. V, which neither under Article forcement come to had this case Assuming that explicitly agreement nor such an mentions sought had IAAF and the district re- written incorporates claims, her Slaney arbitrate compel We, will II. of Article quirement had there whether as to a determination way Minmetals Slaney apply not pose barrier might writing been the lan- First, appears suggests. However, position. the IAAF’s lack suggesting Slaney guage has Here, an arbitration the case. written is irrelevant in an Arti- other states where recognition and en- cle V case is dicta. The court its rested forcement are sought. The Convention primarily decision on an estoppel theory specifically contemplates that the state Slaney because had participated freely in which, in or under the which, law of the arbitration without arguing lack made, award is will be free to set aside of a written agreement de- arbitrate or modify an award in accordance with prived the jurisdiction. arbitral tribunal of its domestic arbitral law and its full Id. In applying estoppel principles, panoply of express implied grounds court stated: “We see no reason why, for relief. See V(l)(e). Convention art. even in the of a writing, absence ordinary However, the Convention is equally rules of contract law should not apply.” clear that when an action for enforce- case, Id. In this below, as we discuss Chi brought in a state, foreign Mei continually objected to the arbitration state may refuse to enforce the award panel’s jurisdiction always has main- only 'on grounds explicitly set forth tained purchase were contracts Article V of the Convention. forged. Estoppel is applica- therefore not Id. at 23. ble in this Moreover, case. court blush, At first Ahmed Alghanim Yusuf did not Slaney discuss First Options in might appear to Minmetals’ support posi- considering Slaney’s position with regard tion as it holds that awards rendered ain to the alleged lack of a written foreign state must be enforced unless one to arbitrate.11 the specific narrow exceptions in Article Minmetals’ reliance on Ahmed Al V is proven, Yusuf while a United States court

ghanim likewise is misplaced. In that may refuse enforce an award rendered distinguished between in the United States or under United awards rendered in a foreign state and States law on other grounds implied under awards rendered the state in which the FAA. is, First Options course, enforcement is sought, holding that a court FAA, case under the and Minmetals sug- may consider implied grounds of relief un gests it is therefore irrelevant here as FAA, der the such as the arbitrator’s man the award in this case was made in a ifest disregard law, when asked to foreign state. First Options, however, did enforce an award rendered the United not involve an implied ground for relief States under .the Convention. Rather, under the FAA. Yusuf it involved Alghanim, Ahmed 126 F.3d at 20-23. The more fundamental question of whether the court stated: party opposing enforcement was ever a sum,

In we conclude that the Conven- party to a valid to arbitrate. tion mandates very regimes different Ahmed Alghanim, there was no Yusuf (1) the review of arbitral awards challenge validity to the of the arbitration which, state or under the law of agreement only the interpre- arbitrator’s — which, the made, (2) award was in tation of contract terms and application of 11. We suggest do not analysis court’s Options, 514 U.S. at 115 S.Ct. at 1924. Options. inconsistent with First Slaney, therefore, On the Slaney, facts of the court's Supreme 591. explic- Court "non-signatories conclusion that to an arbi- itly stated that deciding ”[w]hen whether tration nevertheless be bound parties agreed to arbitrate a certain according matter ordinary principles of contract (including arbitrability), generally courts agency, ... including estoppel” was consis- apply should ordinary principles state-law tent with reasoning the Court's Op- in First that govern the formation of contracts.” First tions. expressed the in our decisions disput- were concern profits law on lost York

New II cases like Sandvik Id. at 23-25. in Article ed. required to parties only Deutz—that find that the absence therefore We disputes they intended to arbitrate those agree valid to a written any reference in this likewise case. present arbitrate'—is Article V not does to arbitrate ment a district court We therefore hold that enforcement on the a defense foreclose an arbitration should refuse to enforce was a valid there never that grounds the award under the Convention where Minmetals cannot to arbitrate. agreement agreement to parties did not reach a valid interpreting Article V of any case point to arbitrate, least in of waiv the absence narrowly to preclude as so the Convention objection er of the the are aware of none.12 and we that defense party opposing enforcement.13 text and structure the Con Nor do the interpretation. In compel such an vention question are the We therefore left with deed, Article II contains an although only nature whether the international of this requirement, Arti writing” “agreement Options. First it distinguishes case from seeking requires to enforce cle IV precisely, more we must ask wheth- Stated supply “[t]he under Article V to an award er of the the international context arbitra- referred to in article original agreement principle tion at issue affects the that the application for enforce along II” its should whether there district court decide Furthermore, expressly Article V ment. agreement was a valid to arbitrate. As opposing that enforce the provides noted, that, Options First held in a already competent au may furnish “to the FAA, arising case under the domestic recognition and enforce thority where should independently district court make ... sought that the said proof ment is ” decision, that even after the arbitrators .... is not valid Read as jurisdic- have that have they decided did therefore, whole, the Convention contem tion, clear absent and unmistakable evi- only a court should enforce plates that dence that intended leave only agreements to arbitrate and valid Thus, agreements. on those that determination the arbitrators. awards based argument, only had At oral counsel for Chi Mei for existence Italia, Europcar urged time the first minor influence the arbitrators’ substan- Tours, Inc., S.p.A. decision, v. Maiellano enforcing tive the award not would Cir.1998), (2d support provided direct 315-16 V(2)(b). public policy violate under Article reading the Convention. In that for its Here, argument Id. in the face Mei’s of Chi party resisting enforce- containing contract argue con- ment did forged Europcar inapposite. clause itself is (which taining clause was exe- the arbitration opinion express applicability We no as to 1988) fraudulent; forged or cuted in was V(2)(b) of Article to this case. rather, argued agreements one of the based their substan- on which arbitrators not, however, hold, 13. We do as Chi Mei (which 1979) tive decision was executed in urges, V "incorporates” that Article forged. Id. The court therefore conclud- agreement requirement. valid written II’s that, ed inasmuch as the 1988 arbitration respect, there is indeed some distinction agreement explicitly provided that arbitra- II V. The between Article and Article former disputes involving va- tors would decide requires explicitly "agreement writing” agreement, party resisting lidity requires only while the latter that the opportunity enforcement had the to raise the arbitrability have reached forgery agreement during issue of of the 1979 and, event, ordinary principles. proceedings, contract the arbitration Preliminarily on the issue it is worth jurisdiction their own than Ameri- —more noting that we previously have can applied arbitration rules.14 One commentator First context, has opined international that “international arbitration albeit case rules seeking normally to compel provide arbitra- explicitly that the tion rather than arbitrators have power to confirm an award. See determine their Deutz, jurisdiction,” own (“We so agreements 270 F.3d at 155 recognize that incorporating First international Options ais domestic arbitration arbitration rules fall within “the case, of the but the international nature of the parties exception of First Options.” Ian present litigation does not affect appli- al., R. MacNeil et IV Federal Arbitration cation of Options’ First principles.”). Fur- Law: Agreements, Awards Remedies thermore, And one district court in this circuit Under the Federal Arbitration Act has distinguish to refused international ar- § 44.15.1 (Supp.1996) (quoted Parra, 25 bitration proceedings from domestic arbi- 476). F.Supp.2d also, at See K. Conrad tration proceedings, despite the greater Harper, The Options in Options: First In- presumption in favor of arbitration ternational Arbitration and Arbitral Com- context, international in applying First Op- petence, 771 (1998) PLI/Comm 141-43 tions ato case involving the Inter-Ameri- (noting that prior even First can Convention on International Commer- some courts had by held that incorporating Arbitration, cial implemented is ICC Arbitration Rules into an arbitration Chapter FAA, of3 9 § U.S.C. 301. the parties clearly and unmis- Parra, Am. Ins. Co. v. 25 F.Supp.2d Life takably had authorized the arbitral tribu- 467, 474, (D.Del.1998). 476 nal to jurisdiction determine its own There nonetheless be reason to arguing that incorporation of such rules is think that the international posture of this too courts). often by overlooked But case removes from the scope of First Parra, see 25 F.Supp.2d at 476 (rejecting Options. For example, international arbi- the suggestion that clearly and tration rules tend to favor the rule of unmistakably agreed to submit arbitrabili- (sometimes competence-competence ty known disputes to the arbitral by panel submit- as kompetenz-kompetenz) principle ting arbitration proceeding governed —the that gives power arbitrators the decide Inter-American Commercial Arbitra- 14. 21 of SID”) the United Nations Commis- as well as the American Arbitration ("UNCI- sion on International Trade Law (“AAA”) Association International Arbitration TRAL”) Rules of Arbitration states that "[t]he give Rules likewise pow- arbitral tribunals the arbitral tribunal power shall have the to rule er to rule jurisdiction, on including their own objections on jurisdiction, it has no in- objections existence, respect with to the cluding any objections respect to the scope, validity or of the agree- arbitration validity existence or of the arbitration clause 41(1); ment. ICSID Arbitration Rule AAA or separate of the agreement.” arbitration International Arbitration Art. Rules The 15. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules Art. 21. The London Court of International Arbitration (“ICC”) International Chamber of Commerce (“LCIA”) further, go step Rules one granting Rules of Arbitration allow a that con- power, arbitration tribunal the same existence, tests the validity, scope or providing "[b]y agreeing further arbi- arbitration to ask a court to decide Rules, tration these shall exists; whether valid if the court having agreed treated as apply any not to finds, so then the arbitral tribunal rules on state court judicial or authority other for arbitrability specific dispute before regarding relief juris- Arbitral Tribunal's it. 6(2). ICC Rules of Arbitration Art. The ” authority diction or .... LCIA Rules of Arbi- Arbitration Rules of the International Center tration Art. 23.4. for (“IC- Disputes Settlement of Investment proceed- adjourn arbitration no need ar- rules, which authorize tion Commission judge. Wil- to a matter to refer ings The disputes). such to resolve

bitrators Juris- Park, Determining Arbitral W. liam incor- example, in this contracts Between Tasks Allocation diction: at 31. App. rules of CIETAC. porate Int’l Arbitrators, Am. Rev. Courts the arbitrators allow do indeed rules Those (1997). brand of Under Arb. jurisdic- their own to determine power however, the ar- competence-competence, Economic International China tion. subject decision is jurisdictional bitrators’ Commission, Arbitration Arbitration Trade before, after, any time review judicial (“The Arbitration I, § Art. Ch. Rules as was proceedings, during to decide power has the Commission law. English case under traditionally the validity of an existence and French form n. id. at 140 & See an ar- over jurisdiction on somewhat goes competence-competence Nonetheless, case.”). incorpo- bitration arbitra- only can decide A court further. is into the contract rule of this ration been has panel arbitral bility before actually agreed parties only if the relevant agree- alleged arbitration the if constituted all, a contract After incorporation. to its otherwise, void; courts clearly is any power, body arbitral give an cannot after case until hear the decline to must own its to determine power the less much Id. at rendered. is award arbitral entered never parties if the jurisdiction, competence- form of the strictest Finally, it. into kom- German the traditional competence is of CIETAC incorporation Although arbitral which an petenz-kompetenz, is not contract forged allegedly in an rules a case jurisdictional decision panel’s that Chi Mei require in itself enough kompetenz- ato agreed the where this clause in the bound essentially was insulated clause kompetenz suggests case, nonetheless Id. at judicial review. of any form from is dispute this nature of the international 141-42. from this case distinguish sufficient formulations, different Despite these Thus, argued it could be Options. First pre- however, principle’s despite the compe- favoring norms international allowing arbitrators of sumption in favor pol- American as well as tence-competence, appears jurisdiction, their own decide particularly favoring icy compe- country adhering the every cases, suffi- are in international strongly some allows principle tence-competence inapplicable First to render cient the arbitrator’s judicial review form Competence- context. international the party where decision jurisdictional slightly different applied is competence enforcement seeking to avoid one element world. ways around the valid arbitration argues no the conferral nations is to all common 140-42. Even id. at See existed. ever jurisdiction on to decide power judi- for allowed model traditional German important is It arbitrators themselves. making of very review when cial says principle note, competence-competence judicial review. role nothing about Dulic, Op- First Adriana challenged. See Kaplan Inc. v. Chicago, form, competence-compe- tions simplest its In Pepp. Principle, Kompetenz-Kompetenz the arbitrators means that simply tence (2002). Further- L.J. Disp. Resol. jurisdiction without their own examine can Com- Nations more, the United so; if one side a court do waiting for (“UN- Trade Law invalid, on International mission there clause says the arbitration ' CITRAL”) proposed its Model Law on simply a matter of contract between the Arbitration,

International Commercial parties; way it is a to resolve those dis- prohibits parties limiting from putes only those disputes —but —that power of the arbitral tribunal to rule on its agreed have to submit to arbitra- jurisdiction, own but which substan- allows Options, First tion.” 514 U.S. at tial opportunity judicial review of that S.Ct. at 1924. This rationale is not specific ruling. UNCITRAL Model Law on Inter- to the It FAA. is a crucial principle national Commercial Arbitration Art. 16. arbitration generally, including in the in- If jurisdictional made, challenge is Indeed, ternational context. even interna- arbitral panel either prelimi- issue tional laws and rules of arbitration that nary ruling jurisdiction or may defer traditionally grant arbitrators leeway more that decision until issuance of its final to decide jurisdiction their own have al- Id. award. either chal- lowed a objecting to the validity of lenging jurisdiction may judicial seek re- to arbitrate judicial to seek view of a tribunal’s decision that it has review of panel’s an arbitral decision that jurisdiction over Id. Both dispute. jurisdiction it has under the alleged agree- England and Germany, nearly as well as reasons, ment. For these that, we hold 40 other countries and several states with- under the rule of Options, First a party in the United States have legisla- enacted opposes that enforcement of a foreign arbi- tion based on the Model Law. UNCI- tration award under the Convention the on TRAL, of Status Conventions Model and grounds that alleged the agreement con- Laws, at http://www.unicitral.org/en-in- taining the arbitration clause on which the (last 2003). dex.htm. 20, Mar. modified arbitral panel jurisdiction rested its was void ab initio is entitled to present

It evi- therefore seems clear interna- that dence of such invalidity the tional district overwhelmingly law favors some court, which must an independent make judicial form of review of an arbitral tribu- determination of agreement’s the validity nal’s jurisdiction decision that it has over a and therefore of the arbitrability of the dispute, at least where the challenging dispute, at least of absence party waiver claims that the contract on which the precluding the defense. tribunal jurisdiction rested its was invalid. International of competence-compe- norms In this the district court con tence are therefore not inconsistent with firmed and' enforced the arbitral Supreme the Op- First holding Court’s opinion. without Chi Mei asks us to re tions, least as insofar the holding is verse the district judgment court’s applied where, here, ain case as the remand with instructions to judg enter

resisting alleges enforcement the that con- ment in its favor denying mo Minmetals’ tract on jurisdiction which arbitral tion to confirm and and granting enforce founded is and always has been void. its motion record, to dismiss. On we sum, First Options holds that a

In grant cannot this relief. Although Chi Mei court asked to enforce an arbitration proffered evidence suggesting that the award, at request the of a opposing contracts providing for arbitration were enforcement, may independent determine forged, presented Minmetals the sale ly the arbitrability dispute. of the Al goods contracts and other evi documents Options First though arose under dencing the existence valid contracts to FAA, the Court’s reasoning in the ease is alternative, the district In court. Chi based on the principle that “arbitration is Mei asks we remand the case to the

290 in the arbi participates nevertheless to but proceedings further court for

district the chal waiver of proceedings, tration contracts. validity ascertain be will not jurisdiction facts, to arbitral lenge dispute apparent Given Chi v. Kaplan First On inferred.” appropriate. is a remand agree Cir.1994), (3d 1503, Inc., cago, free to treat remand, court is the district 938, 115 S.Ct. 'd, a motion 514 U.S. as to dismiss Mei’s motion Chi aff 985; v. Pa. Power Co. oppo- see also to entertain L.Ed.2d summary judgment, IBEW, 886 F.2d it, such further # to conduct Local Union sition Cir.1989). (3d appropriate. proceedings is that this case dif argues Minmetals B. WAIVER do under the precedent from our ferent that Chi Mei argues also arises under FAA it because mestic argu forgery/jurisdiction waived has state on principle we Yet the Convention. voluntarily by participating jurisdiction waiver to limitation of than seek rather proceedings in this court is well-settled arbitrators in the district stay of ing a compelling no reason offers and Minmetals by arguing Mei counters court.15 Chi is, some There here. ignore merits participate it did or state law federal question whether only arbitration, rather appeared but Deutz, waiver issue. govern the should that, regardless object jurisdiction applies law “[f]ederal we observed merits, it pre on the participation of its agree of arbitration interpretation by challenge jurisdiction right its served “[t]hus, partic ‘whether ments” by jurisdiction and objecting to properly class of those within the dispute ular before the arbi forgery issue arguing arbitration and disputes governed it not issue a Although did panel. tral clause is a matter federal choice law plainly the district opinion, written Deutz, (quoting at 154 270 F.3d law.’” it asked this concerned with issue was U.S.A., Inc. v. Becker Autoradio Becker questions sides for both numerous counsel (3d 39, GmbH, 43 585 Autoradiowerk argument. waiver at oral about Cir.1978)). that recognized, We stated Options in First Supreme Court held under repeatedly have We deciding whether in that a court FAA, opinion in First including our matter should to a certain agreed af arbitrate Court Supreme in Options principles gov “ordinary apply state-law party a does not judgment, that firmed our (citing Id. erning contract formation.” arbitrability where it objection to waive its 944, at 115 S.Ct. Options, 514 U.S. at First objection in “A arbitration: raises 1924). parties’ went on to stay uphold We try enjoin or not have to to party does Pennsylvania law by applying pre to choice law in order proceeding an arbitration arbitrability dispute in jurisdiction.... A to objection to serve its ’ principles con stated, First noting that re objection, once jurisdictional were no law cerning application of state judicial review absent preserved mains context in applicable the international There less unequivocal a waiver.... clear law and than under domestic arbitration fore, objects arbitrability where applica- between the distinction times elusive contends that 15. We note that Minmetals estoppel. right principles a lack of See its to claim tion of waiver "Chi Mei waived agreement,” Appellee’s br. at Slaney, written arbitral F.3d at 591. 244 18, the some- we do not consider and thus

291 that, event, in any application of federal filed its own counterdemand for arbitra- law would not have altered the Kirsh, outcome of tion. 540 A.2d at 863-64. Finally, the ease. Id. at 155. Jersey Court, New Supreme dicta, has noted that a party may preserve its

In appears it if case state law is objection an jurisdiction arbitrator’s applicable it is that of New Jersey, an uninsured by motorist ease “making state which incorporated, Chi Mei is has objection to the offices, propriety its does arbitra- business.16 New Jer- tion on ground sey law of no may coverage be somewhat more tolerant participating than law of federal the notion that proceeding may objection protest waive its to an to decide the arbitrator’s other ... jurisdiction questions.” In participating in re Arbitration Between proceedings. In Jersey New Wilmer Grover and Universal Underwrit- Manufactur- Franklin, ers Co., Insurance Co. v. 221, 160 ers Ins. N.J.Su- 80 448, N.J. 403 A.2d 292, per. (1979). (1978), 389 A.2d 980 the New Jersey intermediate appellate court held record this case makes clear “[ejven of a absence contractual Chi participation Mei’s in the CIETAC arbitration, submission of an issue to proceedings largely was limited to arguing party may by conduct or agreement waive the forgery issue. Although appears legal right judicial determination,” his presented have at least one alternative but that participation “mere in the arbitra- argument, it consistently objected to the tion does not conclusively bar a party from panel’s jurisdiction arbitral both in the ar- seeking judicial determination of arbitra- bitration proceedings and before the dis- bility, even as late as the time of the trict App. court. Furthermore, 41-A5. application claimant’s to confirm the its to proceed decision with the arbitration award.” Id. at 984. On the other despite jurisdictional its objection like-

hand, the same court has held that “mere ly necessary prevent being assertion objection does not dictate a against absence; entered it in its it ap- finding of Highgate non-waiver.” Dev. pears that not have had Kirsh, Corp. v. N.J.Super. sufficient contacts with New Jersey (1988). A.2d Franklin, United States for it subject have been court held a party preserved that its objec- jurisdiction the of the federal district court tion to an jurisdiction arbitrator’s by clear- elsewhere, New Jersey or so that Chi ly that issue “flagging” in its memoranda likely Mei would have not been to the able to arbitrator while presenting what the against initiate enjoin suit it to court a the called “mere arbitra- argument alternative tion, at least on the not in the merits” in United the same States.17 memoranda. Franklin, Thus, See id. at Kirsh, 212. 389 A.2d at whether apply 984-85. we law, the court a federal law or Jersey found New party waiver where a result the entered what the is the suggested court same: Chi Mei did not waive its objection “nominal to the juris- objection arbitrator’s jurisdiction to CIETAC’s inas- proceeded diction” and participate fully to much it participated in the arbitration in the merits of the arbitration primarily argue even forgery/jurisdiction 16. We that to parties note that extent 17. result Our would different even if treat applicable they state law as Chi Mei could have initiated an seem action enjoin assume United States to the law is arbitration have Jersey. that of New jurisdiction obtained over Minmetals in that action. agree- original “[t]he ply the court objected to CIE- consistently

issue and II,” and it is to in article referred throughout proceed- jurisdiction TAC’s party that this means apparent ings.18 provide enforcement must seeking written duly signed IV. CONCLUSION with either court or clause containing an arbitration contract reasons, will va- foregoing For the is evi- to arbitrate an agreement court entered the district the order of cate tele- exchange of letters or by an denced of the 11, 2002, judgment June II as follows: provides Article grams. 22, 2002, and August court entered district recog- shall Contracting State 1. Each further to that court for this remand case writing under an nize opinion. with this consistent proceedings undertake to submit parties which concurring. ALITO, which Judge, all or differences Circuit may arise between or which have arisen sepa- opinion but join I write Court’s legal rela- respect of defined them importance rately to elaborate not, or tionship, whether contractual 1(b) IV, of the Convention Section subject capable of concerning a matter notes, “the As the Court in this case. by arbitration. settlement is a ... that arbitration principles crucial uniting’ ‘agreement 2. The term that a can be matter of contract in a clause shall include an arbitral it only those issues arbitrate forced to agreement, or an arbitration contract to submit specifically agrees contained in an parties or signed district here suggest ... exchange telegrams. letters or indepen- to determine obligation had an State, Contracting dently the existence The court of a at 14. of the Court in a matter in Opinion of an action arbitrate.” seized when in Article find have made expression of which the principles These respect IV, 1(b), that a provides meaning agreement within Section shall, article, enforce an arbitral party seeking request at the of one this sup- must, application, of the “at the time refer to arbi- parties, agreement referred original tration, ... the said ply [t]he unless finds copy void, duly II or a certified inoperative to in article null and 1(b). IV, § art. being performed. thereof.” Convention incapable seeking enforce Because added). Article (emphasis Id. at art. II satisfy this obli- cannot arbitral award on three “agreement” II refers to an thus forged or fraudulent gation by proffering (1) discussing when the obli- occasions: required the Dis- agreement, provision “Contracting each State” to “rec- gation of and make hearing hold a trict Court to (2) in writing”; an in ognize agreement genuineness on the findings factual writing”; “agreement an defining here. agreement at issue (3) in which enforce- requiring the court noted, when IV, 1(b), sought compel to re- ment is Article Section agreement an parties the “have made sup- quires seeking enforcement party V arguments raising under Article of has defenses that the district court 18. Because hold If the court holds on re- validity an the Convention. obligation determine the of an valid, agreements Chi Mei’s that the are raises mand agreement arbitrate where may require arguments regarding defenses point issue before it enforce as an award, Chi Mei's we need not resolution. CIETAC reach within of’ meaning Article II. Both the parties termined that the entered into a first second references an written agreement concern to arbitrate their dis “agreement writing,” pute, requires and the third ref- Convention the District Court to assume merely erence directs the that the reader to a defi- tribunal’s deter mination was correct. “agreement” nition of Minmetals’s set forth elsewhere read ing Convention, of II. an “agreement Article Since in writ- would render the prerequisites to ing” only enforcement of type “agreement” of dis- an award set forth in superflu Article II, IV cussed in Article seems that an clear ous. It is well established that “‘courts “agreement referred to in II” article should avoid a construction of a statute “agreement means an in writing” as de- any provision renders superfluous.’” Thus, fined in that Article. seek- United Steelworkers Am. v. North Star ing enforcement of an arbitral un- Co., (3d Cir.1993) Steel (quot der Article IV supply must the court with ing Pennsylvania v. United States Dept. “agreement in writing” within the Servs., Health and Human 928 F.2d of Article II. meaning (3d Cir.1991)). If Minmetals’s An “agreement in writing,” Article II correct, reading were there would be no us, tells “an means arbitral in a clause purpose IV, l(b)’s for Article Section re or an agreement, contract quirement that a party “applying for rec signed by parties or in an contained ognition and enforcement” anof arbitral exchange telegrams.” letters or Id. at award supply the court with parties’ II, § art. 2. To enforce the award granted signed, agreement written or exchange of by tribunal, the arbitral Minmetals was telegrams. letters or On Minmetals’s required therefore to the demonstrate view, the existence of a valid District Court that it and Chi Mei had would be conclusively established once the agreed to arbitrate dispute arising out party seeking pointed enforcement out of the purported nickel and that contracts portion of the arbitral tribunal’s decision (1) they had done so means of either in which it found that had signed by written contract both entered into a written to arbi (2) exchange telegrams letters or trate, and therefore position Minmetals’s between them. Since Minmetals does not would make the Convention’s requirement contend that agreed Chi Mei to arbitrate party seeking enforcement submit disputes relating to the purported nickel original agreement a meaningless for by way exchange contracts of letters mality. or telegrams, it follows that Minmetals reading better of Article IV—which required prove to the District Court comports principles with fundamental signed Chi Mei a written requires that the party seek- arbitration — dispute adjudicated by arbitrate the (1) ing supply enforcement both a docu- arbitral tribunal. specifically Chi Mei dis- ment purporting to be the issue, putes claiming signa- (2) arbitrate parties’ dispute prove tures of its purported officers on the nickel to the court where enforcement is sought result, forged. contracts were As a that such is in fact an “agree- document required Convention the District Court to writing” within the meaning inquire into whether Chi Mei’s officers II, 2. In the present Section signed purported nickel contracts. accordingly, required Minmetals was contends, however,

Minmetals demonstrate to the District Court that where arbitral already tribunal has signed de- officer of Mei purported Chi Because the District

nickel contracts. without award enforced

Court ordered showing, to make that

requiring vacated. must be

its decision America, STATES

UNITED

Appellant,

v.

Theresa L. LAMPLUGH.

No. 02-2001. Appeals, States Court

United

Third Circuit. 11, 2003.

Argued March 30, 2003.

June Samuelson,

Wayne P. (Argued), Office Attorney, Williamsport, the United States PA, Appellant. for Smith,

Stephen (Argued), C. Smith Law Haven, Offices, PA, Appellee. Lock for SLOVITER, NYGAARD, and Before ALARCON,* Judges. Circuit * Alarcon, Circuit, sitting designation. Judge, Arthur L. Senior Honorable Appeals United States Court of Ninth

Case Details

Case Name: China Minmetals Materials Import and Export Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Corporation

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Jun 26, 2003

Citation: 334 F.3d 274

Docket Number: 02-2897, 02-3542

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.