Panamax International Shipping Company Ltd. v. AAT Global Ltd. et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner's petition to recognize, confirm, and enforce the Award is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter a judgment in favor of the petitioner confirming the arbitration award and finding AAT and Himadri liable to the petitioners in the amount of $53,698.69, plus post-judgment interest. The Clerk is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 9/24/2024) (ks) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
───────────────────────────────────
PANAMAX INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING
COMPANY LTD.,
Petitioner,
- against -

24-cv-3512 (JGK)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

AAT GLOBAL LTD., ET AL.,
Respondents.
───────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The petitioner, Panamax International Shipping Company Ltd
(“Panamax”), brought an arbitration subject to the Convention on
the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the
“New York Convention”), 21 U.S.T. 2517, and Chapter Two of the
Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-08, against
Respondent AAT Global Ltd. (“AAT”). 1 AAT failed to appear at the
arbitration proceedings, and on March 4, 2024, the Arbitration
Panel issued an award finding AAT liable in the amount of
$385,262.39 (the “Award”). The Arbitration Panel also concluded
that Panamax could seek enforcement of the Award against AAT’s
parent, Himadri Speciality Chemicals Ltd. (“Himadri”) in the
event that AAT failed to pay. The petitioner subsequently
brought this action against both AAT and Himadri (collectively,

The arbitration involves “parties domiciled or having their
principal place of business outside the enforcing jurisdiction,”
Bergesen v. Joseph Muller Corp., 710 F.2d 928, 932 (2d Cir.
1983), and is therefore non-domestic and subject to the New York
Convention, see Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons v. Toys “R” Us,
Inc., 126 F.3d 15, 18-19 (2d Cir. 1997).
1

“the respondents”), seeking to confirm the Award and requesting
that judgment be entered in the amount of $385,262.39, plus
post-judgment interest.

See ECF No. 1.

This Court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing the
respondents to show cause, upon written submission, why an Order
should not be entered recognizing and confirming the Award, and
for judgment thereon. See ECF No. 11. AAT and Himadri failed to
respond. In its Reply Memorandum of Law, Panamax advised the
Court that it had received payment from the respondents in the
amount of $331,567.70 but that the respondents had failed to pay
the remaining $53,698.69. See ECF No. 13. Panamax brought
another Order to Show Cause to recover the amount outstanding,
see ECF Nos. 15, 18, and AAT and Himadri once again failed to
respond.
“The confirmation of an arbitration award is a summary
proceeding that merely makes what is already a final arbitration
award a judgment of the court.” Yusuf, 126 F.3d at 23 (quoting
Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz, 750 F.2d 171, 176 (2d Cir. 1984)). 2
By contrast, the burden on a party seeking to vacate an
arbitration award is significant. “To avoid undermining the twin
goals of arbitration, namely, settling disputes efficiently and

Unless otherwise noted, this Memorandum Opinion and Order omits
all alterations, omissions, emphasis, quotation marks, and
citations in quoted text.
2

2

avoiding long and expensive litigation, arbitral awards are
subject to very limited review.” Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Team
Tankers A.S., 811 F.3d 584, 588 (2d Cir. 2016).
In cases arising under the New York Convention, as this
case does, “[t]he court shall confirm the award unless it finds
one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or
enforcement of the award specified in [Article V of the New
York] Convention.” 9 U.S.C. § 207. Article V provides that a
court need not enforce an arbitral award where:
(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

The parties to the agreement . . . were
. . . under some incapacity, or the said
agreement is not valid under the law . .
.; or
The party against whom the award is
invoked was not given proper notice of
the appointment of the arbitrator or of
the arbitration proceedings . . .; or
The award deals with a difference not
contemplated by or not falling within the
terms of the submission to arbitration,
or it contains decisions on matters
beyond the scope of the submission to
arbitration . . .; or
The composition of the arbitral authority
or the arbitral procedure was not in
accordance with the agreement of the
parties . . .; or
The award has not yet become binding on
the parties, or has been set aside or
suspended by a competent authority of the
country in which, or under the law of
which, that award was made.

New York Convention art. V(1). “Enforcement may also be refused if
‘the subject matter of the difference is not capable of settlement
by arbitration,’ or if ‘recognition or enforcement of the award
3

would be contrary to the public policy’ of the country in which
enforcement or recognition is sought.” Yusuf, 126 F.3d at 19
(quoting New York Convention art. V(2)).
Where an arbitration subject to the New York Convention is
conducted in the United States or pursuant to United States law,
as was the case here, “the domestic provisions of the FAA also
apply, as is permitted by Articles V(1)(e) and V(2) of the New
York Convention.” Scandinavian Reins. Co. Ltd. v. Saint Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 60, 71 (2d Cir. 2012); see also
Yusuf, 126 F.3d at 21-23 (“We read Article V(1)(e) of the
Convention to allow a court in the country under whose law the
arbitration was conducted to apply domestic arbitral law, in
this case the FAA, to a motion to set aside or vacate the
arbitral award.”).
As with arbitration awards under the New York Convention,
under the FAA “[a]rbitral awards may only be vacated on
extremely limited grounds.” Longyan Junkai Info. Tech. Co., Ltd.
v. Amazon.com Servs. LLC, No. 23-cv-4869, 2023 WL 8602839, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2023). Section 10(a) of the FAA sets forth
four grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award: (1)
“corruption, fraud, or undue means” in the procurement of the
award; (2) “evident partiality or corruption in the
arbitrators”; (3) “where the arbitrators were guilty of
misconduct; or (4) “where the arbitrators exceeded their powers,
4

or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and
definite award upon the subject matter was not made.” 9 U.S.C. §
10(a)(1)-(4). A “judicially-created” ground also allows for
vacatur where “an arbitrator has exhibited a manifest disregard
of law.” Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 646 F.3d 113, 121 (2d
Cir. 2011) (quoting Westerbeke Corp. v. Daihatsu Motor Co., 304
F.3d 200, 208 (2d Cir. 2002)).
In this case, the respondents have not shown that any
condition in Article V of the New York Convention applies.
Similarly, they have provided no evidence that the Award was
procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means. Finally, they
have not alleged that the arbitrators were corrupt or guilty of
misconduct, or that they exceeded their powers. Accordingly, the
respondents have not provided any grounds to vacate, modify, or
correct the Award.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner’s petition to
recognize, confirm, and enforce the Award is granted. The Clerk
is directed to enter a judgment in favor of the petitioner
confirming the arbitration award and finding AAT and Himadri
liable to the petitioners in the amount of $53,698.69, plus

5