In Citigroup, Inc.
v. Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, 776 F.3d 126 (2nd Cir. 2015), the issue
was whether the federal court had the authority to enjoin a second arbitration
filed by Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (“ADIA”) against Citigroup, Inc.
(“Citigroup”) after the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York had confirmed a previous award in favor of Citigroup and against
ADIA. Citigroup claimed that ADIA’s new claims were barred by claim preclusion
and res judicata of the federal
judgment that had confirmed the prior award because ADIA’s current claims were
or could have been raised in the first arbitration.
Citing to its previous decisions that held that
arbitrators are to resolve the preclusive effects of an arbitration award
confirmed by a state court and a federal judgment that had been issued on the
merits, the Second Circuit held that it was the arbitrators, not the federal
courts, who should determine the preclusive effect of a federal judgment
confirming an arbitration award. The court noted that, in confirming the award,
the district court did not review the merits of any of ADIA’s substantive
claims or the context in which the claims arose, considering only whether the
panel’s evidentiary rulings and application of New York’s choice of law provisions
violated the FAA. Accordingly, the court found that a district court unfamiliar
with the underlying circumstances, transactions, and claims was not the best
interpreter of what had been decided in the arbitration proceedings.
A copy of the Second Circuit’s decision is linked here.
No comments:
Post a Comment