Miga, a French company, sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of goods, much of it on credit, to various agencies of the Russian government. The first deals were made with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), then, after the collapse of that government in 1991, with the Federative Socialist Soviet Republic of Russia (RSFSR), the successor government. The agreements called for binding arbitration of any disputes at the Chamber of Commerce of Stockholm, Sweden, under Swiss law, and subject to enforcement in court in New York. Following failure to make payments, the arbitrator awarded Miga $275 million, which Russia refused to pay. Miga brought suit in federal court in New York to enforce the arbitration award.
You be the judge. Who wins? Why? Make sure you address all the issues.
The main point in this scenario is that the agreements called for binding arbitration of any disputes at the Chamber of Commerce, which was subject to enforcement in a NY court. The arbitrator awarded the company $275 million, but Russia never paid. The company sued Russia, to enforce the binding arbitration. Because both parties agreed specifically to binding arbitration, the decision, including the award, from the arbitrator is binding. Russia can't refuse to pay the award. If Russia still doesn't want to pay, they'd have to prove that the arbitration shouldn't be binding because it was ...
This solution discusses the Miga scenario. Legal principles are applied to determine the winning party. All relevant issues are addressed.