Petitioner Copragri and respondent Agribusiness United DMCC are overseas patrons and sellers of feed and grain, respectively, who entered into gross sales agreements for grain cargoes. Pursuant to its obligations beneath the gross sales agreements, Agribusiness chartered a vessel from Vitosha Maritime Ltd. to move the grain cargoes from Louisiana to Morocco. The vessel’s grasp issued payments of lading for the cargoes to Agribusiness. Copragri was not a celebration to the payments of lading, the again of which included a provision calling for arbitration in New York.
After Vitosha Martina introduced a declare in opposition to Agribusiness for delays of the vessel and different bills on the discharge port in Morocco, Agribusiness introduced an indemnity declare to Copragri. Six years later, Agribusiness commenced arbitration of this declare, and an arbitration panel was chosen with out Copragri’s participation. Copragri objected to the arbitration on a number of grounds, primarily as a result of the governing contracts between the events had been the gross sales agreements for grain cargoes, and never the invoice of lading beneath which Agribusiness had initiated the New York arbitration. These objections had been supplied each to Agribusiness and to the arbitration panel. Nevertheless, Copragri’s objections had been ignored, and the arbitration panel issued an award to Agribusiness for $208,300. The award didn’t handle Copragri’s varied objections or problems with arbitrability or jurisdiction, nor did it embrace any authorized citations.
Copragri thereafter filed a petition within the Southern District of New York to vacate the award, which the courtroom granted. The courtroom held that as a result of Copragri was not a celebration to the invoice of lading and due to this fact didn’t consent to arbitration in New York, the arbitration panel acted exterior its scope and authority when issuing its award. The courtroom additionally held that the arbitration panel’s failure to research and even handle Copragri’s varied objections — plenty of which may have been outcome-determinative — constituted a manifest disregard for the legislation, additional justifying vacatur.
