Enforcing arbitral awards in New York
Produced in partnership with Giulia Previti of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP

The following Arbitration practice note produced in partnership with Giulia Previti of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Enforcing arbitral awards in New York
  • The New York and Panama Conventions
  • A system of dual jurisdiction
  • Confirmation of international commercial awards rendered within the US (‘non-domestic’ awards under the New York Convention)
  • Enforcement of international commercial awards rendered outside the US (foreign awards under the New York Convention)
  • Parallel vacatur and enforcement proceedings
  • Stay of enforcement pending parallel vacatur proceedings
  • Effect of annulment of a foreign arbitral award on enforcement in the US
  • The requirement of personal or in rem jurisdiction
  • Denying enforcement on the grounds of forum non conveniens
  • More...

Enforcing arbitral awards in New York

Arbitration is a dispute resolution mechanism based on party consent and typically conducted outside of domestic courtrooms. Yet, there are instances where judicial assistance is needed in order to give effect to the parties’ agreement. For example, national courts may need to intervene at the onset of a dispute to compel arbitration, during arbitral proceedings to order the preservation of evidence or assets, or at the conclusion of an arbitration to enforce compliance with the award.

This Practice Note focuses on the latter avenue for court intervention—the relevant procedures applicable to the enforcement of arbitral awards. Specifically, the Practice Note will address the laws and procedures governing the enforcement of international (ie foreign and non-domestic) commercial arbitration awards in New York.

Federal courts in USA, and those in New York in particular, have long emphasised the strong federal policy in favour of international arbitration, which extends to the enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards (Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 631 (1985); Telenor Mobile Comms. AS v Storm LLC, 584 F.3d 396, 405 (2d Cir. 2009)).

Federal courts in New York are very experienced and well-versed in matters relating to the enforcement of international arbitral awards. However, there are certain considerations that parties need to keep in mind when initiating enforcement proceedings, as outlined below.

Note: the US court

Popular documents