Multiple arbitral awards rendered by the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) were recently recognized and enforced in the United States pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Convention"). This provides strong support for dispute resolution between Chinese and foreign parties and facilitates the orderly development of international trade and economic activities.

Below are two typical cases compiled for reference. 

Case 1: U.S. Courts Affirms Validity of SCIA's Cross-Border Electronic Service 

The original arbitration case involved an international service contract dispute administered by SCIA, wherein the applicant was a Hong Kong company and the respondent was a U.S. company. After the award was issued, the respondent failed to voluntarily fulfill its repayment obligation. The applicant then applied to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award under the New York Convention. In the enforcement proceeding, the respondent argued that it had not been properly notified of the arbitration proceedings and had been denied the right to choose an arbitrator, and thus sought to resist enforcement. 

The U.S. Courts, based on SCIA's service records and the SCIA Arbitration Rules, found that after accepting the case, SCIA had served the arbitration notice and procedural documents on the respondent through three methods: EMS mail, email, and SMS. The electronic service records from SCIA's case management system showed that the respondent had read the arbitration notice and procedural documents via email and SMS. Although the respondent did not submit a defense or select an arbitrator within the specified time, it participated in the subsequent proceedings after the tribunal was constituted, including attending the hearing. Accordingly, the U.S. Courts held that the respondent had received adequate notice during the arbitration process and recognized and enforced the arbitral award under the New York Convention.                                            

The original arbitration case electronic service record in the SCIA "Cloud Arbitration" System. 

This case demonstrates the U.S. Courts' recognition and support for SCIA's service methods, explicitly affirming the validity of cross-border electronic services. This decision, following a similar confirmation by the Singapore High Court, represents another significant endorsement by courts in different jurisdictions of the effectiveness of SCIA's cross-border electronic services in arbitration proceedings.

Case 2: U.S. Courts Grants Temporary Restraining Order in Arbitration Award Enforcement Proceedings 

The original arbitration case involved a loan dispute administered by SCIA, wherein the applicant provided a loan to the first respondent, with the second to eighth respondents serving as guarantors. After the award was issued, the respondents failed to voluntarily fulfill their repayment obligations and transferred their assets to other countries, including the United States. The applicant then applied to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award under the New York Convention.

In the enforcement proceeding, the applicant submitted an ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), seeking to prohibit the respondents from disposing of their assets located within or under the jurisdiction of California. The U.S. Courts approved the TRO application, restraining the respondents from disposing of their assets. The respondents argued that the tribunal had miscalculated the amount of the disputed loan and that the enforcement of the award would violate public policy. The U.S. Courts rejected this argument, noting that the respondents had provided no evidence to demonstrate that the tribunal had reached an erroneous conclusion or that any such error could rise to the level of violating public policy. Accordingly, the U.S. court found no grounds for non-enforcement under the New York Convention and granted the applicant's request for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

This case highlights the advantages and convenience of cross-border enforcement in arbitration. In the context of recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, parties may apply to foreign courts for temporary injunctions to freeze the assets of the award-debtor in advance, effectively preventing the dissipation of assets and evasion of obligations. This provides robust safeguards for the ultimate enforcement of arbitral awards and ensures the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of concerned parties.