Trans Chemical Ltd. v. China National MacHinery Import & Export Corp.
TRANS CHEMICAL LIMITED; Et Al., Plaintiffs, Trans Chemical Limited, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY IMPORT AND EXPORT CORPORATION; Et Al., Defendants, China National MacHinery Import and Export Corporation, Defendant-Appellant; In the Matter of Mohammed H. HALIPOTO, M.D.; Zareena Halipoto, Debtors. CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY IMPORT AND EXPORT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. TRANS CHEMICAL LIMITED, Appellee; CNMIEC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TCL, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CMC) appeals the district court’s confirmation of an arbitral award rendered against it. We affirm.
On appeal, CMC raises four issues: (1) Is CMC, a Chinese corporation, an “agent or instrumentality of a foreign state” under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1603 , such that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the arbi-tral award rendered against CMC, 28 U.S.C. § 1330 ? (2) Was the arbitral award “not considered as domestic ... in the State where [its] recognition and enforcement are sought” such that the district court could enforce it pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517 (1970), reprinted in 9 U.S.C. § 201 ? (3) Did the contract between CMC and TCL involve “commerce” such that the district court could enforce the arbitration award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2 ? (4) Did the district court err in refusing to vacate the award under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(1)?
We agree with the district court’s analysis of these issues and therefore adopt Parts I-V of its careful and comprehensive opinion, In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Ltd. & China National Machinery Import & Export Corp., 978 F.Supp. 266 (S.D.Tex.1997).
1
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1
. We do not, of course, imply that the other portions of the opinion are in any way erroneous.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(confirming arbitral award in favor of Pakistani corporation and against Chinese corporation regarding construction of a plant in Pakistan, a non-signatory)
-
(adopting Parts I–V of In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Ltd. & China Nat’l Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp., 978 F. Supp. 266, 298 (S.D. Tex. 1997))
-
(adopting the analysis of In re Arbitration Between Trans Chemical Ltd. & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation , 978 F.Supp. 266, 304 (S.D.Tex. 1997); Gingiss International, Inc. v. Bormet , 58 F.3d 328, 333 (7th Cir. 1995)
Cited by 41 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals17
- Federal District Courts18
- State Appellate Courts5
- State Attorney General Opinions1
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.