Post-Award Considerations and a Look to the Future (IAM)

In their recent IAM chapter, partner Alexandra Valenti and associate Rohini Tashima explain that in some respects, proceedings before an arbitrator may be just the beginning. Once the arbitration panel issues its award, the parties must consider not only whether to challenge that award or seek enforcement but also when and where to do so. This can become a particularly complex question where enforcement is sought in a different jurisdiction to where the award was rendered. Parallel proceedings may lead to a petition to confirm and enforce pending in one jurisdiction while a challenge is pending in another. However, a party considering whether to seek confirmation or modification of an award should not necessarily be dissuaded by the fact that its opposing party has already initiated, or is likely to initiate, proceedings in another country. Because the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) allows courts to refuse recognition of an award that has been set aside by the courts of another country, parties may be incentivized to quickly seek confirmation of an award while proceedings challenging the same award remain pending. Where an action challenging an award remains pending, a court faced with a petition to confirm that award may nevertheless choose to do so. And if the court ultimately confirms the award, that confirmation can allow the prevailing party to use the award offensively in other litigation under the doctrine of res judicata.

Read the full analysis: “Post-award considerations and a look to the future” (IAM)