## Facts

- A Louisiana marketing company and an Italian manufacturer entered a written licensing/sales arrangement granting the Louisiana company exclusive U.S. sales rights for mammography equipment.
- The contract was governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).
- U.S. regulators seized the equipment for noncompliance with U.S. medical-device regulatory requirements, including FDA Good Manufacturing Practices requirements.
- The parties disputed which party bore responsibility under the agreement for ensuring U.S. regulatory compliance.
- The agreement required mediation and, if unsuccessful, arbitration; mediation failed and the dispute proceeded to arbitration before a three-member tribunal.
- The arbitration occurred in New Orleans over several hearing dates in 1998; the tribunal issued an award for the Louisiana company for $357,009 plus interest from October 28, 1996, and allocated arbitration costs.
- The Italian company sought reconsideration from the tribunal, which was denied; the Louisiana company then sought judicial confirmation and entry of judgment under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 9.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court was the proper court to confirm the award under 9 U.S.C. § 9.
2. Whether confirmation should be denied (or the award vacated) because the arbitrators exceeded their powers or acted in manifest disregard of the CISG.
3. Whether enforcement should be refused on public-policy grounds based on the tribunal’s alleged failure to follow foreign CISG precedent.

## Decision

- The court granted the application to confirm the arbitral award and ordered entry of judgment consistent with the award.
- The court held it had authority under 9 U.S.C. § 9 because the award was made in the district where the arbitration occurred.
- The court held the grounds for refusing confirmation or vacating an award were extremely limited and were not satisfied.
- The court rejected the claim that the tribunal acted in manifest disregard of the CISG, characterizing the challenge as an impermissible request to re-litigate the merits.
- The court rejected the public-policy objection, finding no fundamental U.S. or international public policy barring enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- Under 9 U.S.C. § 9, a court must confirm an arbitral award made within the district unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected on the limited grounds recognized by the FAA.
- Judicial review of arbitral awards is highly deferential; alleged legal or factual error does not justify vacatur.
- “Manifest disregard of the law” requires more than misinterpretation; it concerns a situation where arbitrators recognize the governing law and intentionally refuse to apply it.
- Foreign decisions interpreting the CISG may be considered for uniformity and guidance, but they are persuasive rather than binding on a U.S.-seated arbitral tribunal or a U.S. court reviewing the award.
- The public-policy exception to enforcement of arbitral awards is construed narrowly and does not extend to disagreements about substantive legal interpretation.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed an international arbitral award arising from a CISG-governed commercial dispute, holding that alleged misapplication of the CISG and failure to follow foreign CISG precedent did not meet the narrow FAA standards for refusing confirmation, vacatur, or non-enforcement on public-policy grounds.


Medical Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Internazionale Medico Scientifica, S.r.l., 1999 WL 311945 (E.D. La. 1999)