## Facts

- Brandeis Intsel Ltd., a London-based trading company and LME member, contracted to buy 60 metric tons of cuprous chloride from Calabrian Chemicals Corp., a U.S. chemical seller not affiliated with the LME.
- The sale was confirmed through Calabrian’s U.K. representative, with price and delivery terms set at $1,700 per metric ton, C & F Rotterdam.
- The contract incorporated London Metal Exchange standard terms, including an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be arbitrated before the LME in England.
- After shipment, part of the goods was damaged; Brandeis rejected the shipment and sought replacement, and Calabrian refused.
- Brandeis initiated LME arbitration in London and obtained an award in its favor.
- Brandeis petitioned in federal court to confirm the foreign arbitral award under Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act; Calabrian cross-moved to vacate.

## Issues

1. Whether the foreign arbitral award should be recognized and enforced under the New York Convention and 9 U.S.C. § 203.
2. Whether enforcement could be refused under the Convention’s public-policy exception based on claims that the arbitrators acted in “manifest disregard of the law” and misapplied governing sales law.

## Decision

- The court granted the petition to confirm the LME award and denied Calabrian’s cross-motion to vacate.
- The award fell within the New York Convention’s scope, and the court had jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 203.
- Calabrian failed to establish any defense to enforcement under Article V of the Convention.
- The public-policy exception did not permit merits review of the tribunal’s legal conclusions or contractual construction.
- Allegations of misinterpretation or misapplication of sales law did not show a violation of fundamental U.S. public policy, nor did they meet any “manifest disregard” threshold.

## Legal Principles

- Actions to recognize and enforce Convention awards are governed by the limited, enumerated defenses in Article V of the New York Convention.
- The Convention’s public-policy defense (Art. V(2)(b)) is construed narrowly and applies only where enforcement would violate the enforcing forum’s most basic notions of morality and justice, not where the losing party alleges ordinary legal error.
- U.S. courts enforcing a foreign arbitral award do not sit as appellate bodies to reweigh evidence, revisit factual findings, or correct asserted mistakes of law by the arbitrators.
- Recasting a merits-based challenge as “public policy” is inconsistent with the Convention’s pro-enforcement scheme and the federal policy favoring enforcement of international arbitration awards.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the LME arbitral award under the New York Convention, holding that claimed misapplication of substantive law and “manifest disregard” arguments did not trigger the Convention’s narrow public-policy exception or otherwise justify refusal of recognition.


Brandeis Intsel Ltd. v. Calabrian Chems. Corp., 656 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)