In an appeal from the district court’s order confirming a final arbitral award in favor of petitioner and denying respondent’s cross-motion to vacate, the order is affirmed where: 1) the arbitration panel did not manifestly disregard the law either by failing to give preclusive effect to Ukrainian court judgments that the parties’ dispute was not arbitrable because respondent’s agent lacked authority to execute the agreement giving rise to the dispute, or by failing to require a trial to determine the agreement’s arbitrability; and 2) the agreement was arbitrable as a matter of law because the respondent’s agent had the apparent authority to execute it.
Read Telenor Mobile Comms. AS v. Storm LLC, No. 07-4974
Appellate Information
Argued: February 4, 2009
Decided: October 8, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Sack
Counsel
For Petitioner:
Robert L. Sills and Jay S. Musoff, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY
For Respondent:
Pieter van Tol and Gonzalo S. Zeballos, Lovells LLP, New York, NY
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
