Arbitration
| Pages | 8-9 |
8Volume 23, January–March 2017 international law update
© 2017 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
suit was vexatious and duplicative of the Indiana
action. Factors specific to the propriety of antisuit
injunctive relief included, “whether or not the
parties and the issues are the same, and whether or
not the first action is dispositive of the action to
be enjoined.” Id. (citation omitted). If both factors
are met, the district court must then ask whether
“letting the two suits proceed would be gratuitously
duplicative, or as the cases sometimes say ‘vexatious
and oppressive.’” Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull
Data Sys., Inc., 10 F.3d 425, 431 (7th Cir. 1993)
(citation omitted).
Finally, because an “antisuit injunction
operates to restrict the foreign court’s ability to
exercise its jurisdiction as effectively as if it were
addressed to the foreign court itself,” Kaepa, Inc.
v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 630 (5th Cir. 1996)
(citation omitted), a district court should issue an
international antisuit injunction only when the
interest in avoiding vexatious litigation outweighs
the international-comity concerns inherent in
enjoining a party from pursuing claims in a foreign
court. See Rosenbloom v. Barclays Bank PLC, No.
13-CV-04087, 2014 WL 2726136, at *2 (N.D. Ill.
June 16, 2014). *613
With respect to vexatiousness, the district
court reviewed the two actions and concluded,
"1st Source’s conduct in filing suit in Brazil could
at worst be characterized as heavy handed. Neto
presented nothing to establish that 1st Source’s
conduct rose to the level of vexatiousness or
oppressiveness. Given the minimally burdensome
discovery proceedings in Indiana before filing the
lawsuit in Brazil, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in concluding that Neto had failed to
demonstrate that 1st Source’s actions were either
vexatious or oppressive. *614
On appeal, Neto did not present anything
more than what he presented to the district court.
1st Source’s exercise of its contractual rights to
protect its interests was a non-vexatious reason for
pursuing parallel litigation in Brazil, so antisuit
injunctive relief was not appropriate. e judgment
of the district court was affirmed. *615
citation: 1st Source Bank v. Neto, 861 F. 3d 607—
Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2017.
ARBITRATION
New york convention article v(2)(b).
United States Court of Appeals, District
of Columbia Circuit upholds decision
of United States District Court for
the District of Columbia regarding
enforcement of foreign arbitral
tribunal award
On December 9, 2004, Said Musa, the Prime
Minister of Belize, signed a confidential agreement
under which Belize agreed to serve as the guarantor
of a loan made to a Belizean health services
provider by the Bank. By 2007, that health services
provider was in default, making Belize liable for the
outstanding loan balance. Pursuant to a March 23,
2007 settlement agreement, Belize agreed to pay the
debt in full but under pressure from public protests,
Belize refused to make any payment pursuant to
the settlement agreement with the Bank.
Following Belize’s default, the Bank—in
accordance with a dispute resolution clause
included in the settlement agreement—began
arbitration proceedings against Belize in London,
England, under the Rules of the London Court of
International Arbitration (LCIA). Because Belize
largely declined to participate in the early stages
of the arbitration, however, the LCIA had to step
in and appoint Belize’s arbitrator in Belize’s stead.
e LCIA nominated Zachary Douglas as Belize’s
member of the arbitral tribunal. *1109
In March 2012, five years after Douglas’s
initial appointment, Belize challenged Douglas’s
continued service on the arbitral tribunal.
Belize questioned Douglas’s impartiality as a
member of the arbitral tribunal. e LCIA then
created a three-member “Division” to consider
Belize’s challenges. Belize Bank Ltd. v. Gov’t of
Belize, Case No. 81116 (London Ct. Int’l Arb.
2012). e Division rejected both of Belize’s
alternatives. Id. at 11-18. Belize did not take the
Division’s adverse decision well, withdrawing
from the arbitration proceedings and refusing to
participate thereafter. Nonetheless, the proceedings
continued.
To continue reading
Request your trial