## Facts

- A tanker shipped base oil from Paulsboro, New Jersey to Lagos, Nigeria under a bill of lading naming Chemlube International, Inc. as shipper and Ibeto Petrochemical Industries Limited as consignee/receiver.
- The bill of lading stated the shipment was carried pursuant to a charter party between Chemlube (charterer) and Bryggen Shipping and Trading A/S (owner) and incorporated all conditions and exceptions of that charter party.
- The charter party incorporated additional terms containing a London arbitration clause governed by English law.
- Upon arrival, the cargo was allegedly contaminated with seawater, causing claimed losses to Ibeto.
- Ibeto sued Bryggen and the vessel in Nigeria and arrested the vessel there.
- Ibeto also demanded arbitration in London, then filed an admiralty action in the Southern District of New York asserting cargo-damage claims while seeking to avoid or limit arbitration.
- The district court stayed the New York case, compelled London arbitration, enjoined Ibeto’s Nigerian proceedings, and denied Ibeto’s request to voluntarily dismiss the New York action.

## Issues

1. Whether the charter party’s London arbitration clause was effectively incorporated into the bill of lading and bound Ibeto as a non-signatory cargo receiver.
2. Whether an anti-suit injunction restraining Ibeto from prosecuting the Nigerian action was proper to protect the arbitration agreement.
3. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the denial of Ibeto’s motion for voluntary dismissal.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the appeal in part for lack of appellate jurisdiction to the extent it challenged the denial of voluntary dismissal.
- The court affirmed the stay of the New York action and the order compelling London arbitration, holding the bill of lading’s broad incorporation language bound Ibeto to the charter party arbitration clause.
- The court affirmed the issuance of an anti-suit injunction but modified it as overbroad, limiting it to restrain Ibeto (not the Nigerian court) and only for the duration of the London arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- A bill of lading that broadly incorporates a charter party’s “terms,” “conditions,” and “exceptions” may incorporate an arbitration clause and bind cargo interests taking under the bill of lading, even if they did not sign the charter party.
- Federal courts must enforce valid international maritime arbitration agreements by staying litigation and compelling arbitration under federal arbitration law absent a recognized contract defense.
- An international anti-suit injunction may issue where (1) the parties are the same in the domestic and foreign proceedings and (2) the domestic proceeding will be dispositive of the foreign action, and where equitable factors support relief (including preventing evasion of arbitration, avoiding inconsistent outcomes, and discouraging forum shopping).
- Anti-suit injunctions must be narrowly tailored in light of comity, typically restraining litigants rather than foreign courts and limited to what is necessary to protect the arbitration.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that Ibeto was bound by a London arbitration clause incorporated into the bill of lading, upheld a stay and order compelling arbitration, and permitted an anti-suit injunction to prevent parallel Nigerian litigation from undermining arbitration, but required the injunction to be limited to restraining Ibeto during the pendency of the arbitration.


Ibeto Petrochemical Indus. Ltd. v. M/T Beffen, 475 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2007)