## Facts

- Century Indemnity Company and related ACE entities (ACE) and AXA Belgium entered into four reinsurance contracts containing binding arbitration clauses.
- Disputes under reinsurance treaties (including Treaty 3083 and Treaty 1001, Layers 1–3) were submitted to arbitration.
- A three-member arbitration panel issued three awards in ACE’s favor (including interim and final awards).
- ACE petitioned in federal court to confirm the awards under the New York Convention, as implemented by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
- AXA cross-petitioned to vacate the awards, asserting the panel exceeded its authority and raised fairness and public-policy objections.
- Both sides moved to seal the awards and related filings, relying on a confidentiality agreement governing the arbitration and asserted reinsurance industry custom.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should confirm the three arbitral awards under the New York Convention and the FAA.
2. Whether AXA established any recognized ground under the Convention or FAA § 10 to vacate, or to refuse recognition/enforcement of, the awards.
3. Whether the confidentiality agreement and asserted industry practice justified sealing the awards and related judicial filings notwithstanding the presumption of public access.

## Decision

- Granted ACE’s petition to confirm all three arbitral awards.
- Denied AXA’s cross-petition to vacate, finding no applicable Convention defense or FAA vacatur ground.
- Denied the motions to seal, holding the awards and submissions were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access.
- Ordered unredacted filing of previously sealed materials on the public docket and closed the case.

## Legal Principles

- Under the New York Convention, a court must confirm an arbitral award unless a specified Convention ground for refusal or deferral is established.
- Judicial review of arbitral awards is highly deferential; courts do not reexamine the merits and will uphold awards where arbitrators were arguably construing the contract and acting within their authority.
- FAA § 10 vacatur requires proof of limited defects (e.g., corruption, evident partiality, misconduct, or arbitrators exceeding their powers); alleged legal or factual error is generally insufficient.
- The public-policy defense to enforcement is narrow and applies only when enforcement would violate the forum’s most basic notions of morality and justice.
- Materials submitted to obtain judicial relief in confirmation/vacatur proceedings are judicial documents presumptively open to the public under common-law and, where applicable, First Amendment access principles.
- A private confidentiality agreement and industry practice, without a particularized showing of concrete harm from disclosure, do not override the presumption of public access.

## Conclusion

The court enforced three foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention and FAA, rejected AXA’s vacatur challenges under the narrow available defenses, and refused to seal the awards and related filings because confidentiality arrangements and generalized claims of harm did not outweigh the strong presumption of public access to judicial documents.


Century Indem. Co. v. AXA Belg., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136472 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)