Perhaps you represent a U.S. company that is entering into a contract with an overseas entity, or vice versa. You are contemplating whether the contract should provide for arbitration or litigation in the event of a dispute. In deciding that question, you may ask: if your client wins in the proceeding against the other party, is it easier to enforce a non-U.S. court judgment or a non-U.S. arbitration award in the United States?
As it turns out, each scenario presents unique challenges. There is no uniform U.S. law governing the recognition of non-U.S. judgments, but rather a patchwork of varying state laws, which can make recognition more complicated. Confirmation of non-U.S. arbitration awards, on the other hand, is governed by a single, uniform federal statute in the United States. Even so, U.S. proceedings to confirm an arbitration award have to be made on a shorter timetable than proceedings to recognize a non-U.S. judgment, and confirmation of arbitration awards can raise other, complicated issues.
Dispute resolution provisions in contracts are often treated as “boilerplate,” but the choice between arbitration and litigation can be an important one. Lawyers drafting contracts involving both U.S. and non-U.S. parties should think carefully about the differences between enforcing judgments and arbitration awards in the United States to decide whether court or arbitration proceedings are the right choice for their clients.Continue Reading Judgment Gymnastics: Enforcing Overseas Judgments and Arbitration Awards in the U.S.