I.T. International Telecom Marine SRL v. Gignet, Inc.

Background

I.T. International Telecom Marine SRL petitioned to confirm an arbitration award against Gignet, Inc. and FB Submarine Partners LLC. I.T. is a business entity organized under the laws of Barbados. Gignet and FB LLC are Delaware corporations. The parties entered into a December 20, 2019 Cable Route Survey Contract concerning marine survey work in Mexico and the United States. The contract required disputes that could not be resolved amicably to be arbitrated under International Chamber of Commerce rules, with New York City as the arbitration venue.

I.T. began arbitration in April 2023, asserting, among other things, that it had performed the required work but had not been fully paid. It sought $1,147,287 in unpaid principal, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and arbitration costs. Gignet answered in the arbitration. FB LLC received notice but did not answer and generally did not appear through counsel.

On November 22, 2024, the arbitrator determined that Gignet and FB LLC were parties to, and bound by, the contract and arbitration clause, and that they were liable to I.T. The arbitrator issued an award of $1,700,815.60, with interest at the contractual rate of 12% per year from November 22, 2024, until payment or the award became a court judgment. I.T. filed its federal petition to confirm the award on December 16, 2024. The respondents did not oppose it.

Court’s analysis

Because the petition was uncontested, the court treated it like a motion for summary judgment based on I.T.’s submissions. The court explained that review of an arbitration award is narrowly limited. Under the New York Convention, a court generally must recognize and enforce an award unless one of the Convention’s specified grounds for refusing or postponing enforcement is established. The Federal Arbitration Act also provides limited grounds for vacating an award, including fraud, arbitrator partiality, serious procedural misconduct, or the arbitrator’s exceeding of the granted authority.

The court concluded that it had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act and the New York Convention, as well as diversity jurisdiction. It also found venue and personal jurisdiction proper. After reviewing the contract and award, the court found no basis to refuse recognition or enforcement. It found no evidence of incapacity, an invalid arbitration agreement, inadequate notice, inability to present a case, an award outside the scope of the agreement, improper arbitral procedure, or an award that was not binding. It also found that the dispute could be arbitrated under New York law, that enforcement was consistent with public policy, and that none of the Federal Arbitration Act’s vacatur grounds applied.

Ruling

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the petition and confirmed the arbitration award. I.T. was entitled to judgment for $1,700,815.60 plus interest at 12% per year from November 22, 2024, through the date of judgment. Statutory post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 would accrue from the date of judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the petition and the case.