## Facts

- A French manufacturer (LTCL) and Georgia cable companies (Southwire) entered a long-term contract (1974–1980) for Southwire’s purchase of galvanized steel wire.
- The contract included (i) a “world market price adjustment” formula, (ii) ICC arbitration for disputes, and (iii) a governing-law clause selecting Georgia law insofar as consistent with French law.
- Disputes arose over the pricing clause and Southwire’s product-quality claims (corrosion and zinc-coating flaking).
- LTCL demanded ICC arbitration; the parties executed Terms of Reference in mid-1978.
- In a February 1979 partial award, the tribunal adopted LTCL’s interpretation of the pricing clause and ordered Southwire to pay underpayments plus interest at the French legal rate; it ruled for Southwire on the corrosion claim as an offset; it reserved the flaking claim and costs.
- After the parties settled the flaking claim, the tribunal issued an August 1979 further award confirming the settlement and allocating arbitration costs.
- The tribunal calculated interest using a French statutory rate that neither party had formally introduced as evidence; Southwire argued this reliance was improper and rendered the interest portion unenforceable.
- Southwire sued in Georgia state court to vacate the awards; LTCL removed the case to federal court and filed a separate federal action to confirm; the district court consolidated the matters.

## Issues

1. Whether applying a French statutory legal interest rate not formally introduced in evidence justified non-enforcement or vacatur under the Federal Arbitration Act and the New York Convention (public policy and procedural fairness).
2. Whether Southwire established any Convention or FAA ground to refuse enforcement of the ICC awards (including excess of authority, violation of the governing-law clause, or inability to present its case).

## Decision

- The court confirmed the ICC partial and further awards and entered judgment consistent with them.
- The court rejected Southwire’s challenge to the interest component and upheld use of the French legal rate.
- The court found no Convention or FAA basis to vacate, modify, or refuse enforcement, including no public-policy violation and no showing Southwire was unable to present its case.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of international arbitral awards is narrowly confined to the limited defenses enumerated in the New York Convention and applicable FAA provisions; courts do not revisit the merits of contract interpretation or damages calculations.
- The Convention’s public-policy defense is construed narrowly and applies only to awards that offend the forum’s most basic notions of morality and justice; applying a foreign statutory interest rate generally does not meet that standard.
- International arbitrators may consult and apply relevant foreign law in determining relief; the Convention does not require foreign law to be proved with the same formal evidentiary method used for facts in domestic proceedings.
- A party resisting enforcement must show serious procedural unfairness—such as being “unable to present its case”—not merely disagreement with how the tribunal identified or applied governing law.
- Where a contract’s governing-law clause contemplates use of both jurisdictions’ laws, an arbitrator’s reliance on foreign law for matters such as statutory interest does not, without more, exceed arbitral authority.

## Conclusion

The district court enforced the ICC awards under the New York Convention, holding that the tribunal’s reliance on a French statutory interest rate neither violated public policy nor deprived Southwire of a fair opportunity to be heard, and that Southwire failed to prove any recognized ground for non-enforcement.


Laminoirs-Trefileries-Cableries de Lens, S.A. v. Southwire Co., 484 F. Supp. 1063 (N.D. Ga. 1980)