## Facts

- Lander Company, Inc. and MMP Investments, Inc., both U.S. corporations, contracted for MMP to distribute Lander’s personal-care products in Poland.
- The contract required binding arbitration in New York City under International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration rules.
- A dispute arose; Lander terminated the relationship, and MMP initiated ICC arbitration.
- Lander did not contest arbitral jurisdiction; the ICC appointed a New York lawyer as arbitrator, and hearings were held in New York.
- The arbitrator ruled for Lander and awarded more than $500,000 plus interest; ICC rules characterized the award as final and included a waiver of appeal language.
- MMP refused to pay; Lander filed a petition in federal district court in Illinois to confirm the award, alleging diversity jurisdiction and invoking both the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the New York Convention implementing provisions.
- MMP moved to dismiss for lack of federal jurisdiction, arguing the Convention was inapplicable because the parties and arbitral seat were domestic, and also raised FAA timing-based objections to enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether the federal district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm the arbitral award under diversity and the FAA and/or under the New York Convention implementing statutes.
2. Whether an arbitral award made in the United States between U.S. parties falls within the New York Convention when the underlying commercial relationship involves performance abroad.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded.
- The court held federal jurisdiction existed, including under diversity jurisdiction in conjunction with the FAA, and the dispute also fit within the Convention framework as implemented in 9 U.S.C. §§ 201–208.
- The court held the Convention can apply to U.S.-party arbitrations seated in the United States when the underlying relationship has a qualifying foreign connection under 9 U.S.C. § 202.
- The court rejected treating MMP’s procedural/timing arguments as defeating subject-matter jurisdiction at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court may have jurisdiction to confirm an arbitral award where diversity requirements are met and the arbitration agreement or transaction involves interstate or foreign commerce under the FAA.
- Under 9 U.S.C. § 202, an arbitration agreement or award between U.S. citizens is covered by the New York Convention if the relationship involves property abroad, contemplates performance or enforcement abroad, or otherwise has a reasonable relation to a foreign state.
- The FAA’s domestic provisions and the Convention’s implementing provisions may provide overlapping coverage; the Convention is not necessarily exclusive when both could apply.
- Jurisdiction is assessed from the pleaded facts and available statutory bases; an imprecise statutory label does not defeat jurisdiction where the allegations support it.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that a petition to confirm an ICC award between U.S. parties could proceed in federal court because diversity and the FAA supported jurisdiction and, in any event, the Convention applied where the distribution relationship contemplated performance abroad, requiring reversal of the jurisdictional dismissal and remand for enforcement proceedings.


Lander Co. v. MMP Invs., Inc., 107 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 1997)