Chromalloy Aeroservices v. Arab Republic of Egypt
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
939 F. Supp. 907 (1996)
- Written by Whitney Waldenberg, JD
Facts
Chromalloy Aeroservices, Inc. (CAS) (plaintiff), a United States corporation, entered into a contract under which CAS agreed to provide parts, maintenance, and repair for helicopters belonging to the Air Force of the Arab Republic of Egypt (Egypt) (defendant). The contract contained an arbitration clause. Egypt terminated the contract, and CAS notified Egypt that it rejected the cancellations and commenced arbitration proceedings. The arbitral panel issued an award against Egypt and in favor of CAS. CAS filed an action in United States district court to enforce the award. While this action was pending, Egypt filed an appeal of the award in Egyptian court. The Egyptian Court of Appeals suspended the award, and Egypt moved to dismiss the district court action. While Egypt’s motion to dismiss CAS’s enforcement action was pending, the Egyptian Court of Appeals nullified the award. Egypt then argued that the district court should deny CAS’s petition to enforce the award out of deference to the Egyptian court. CAS argued that the award should be confirmed because the Egyptian court’s nullification decision was not consistent with the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) or United States arbitration laws.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Green, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.