A European technology company had secured a favourable commercial award from an arbitral tribunal (an internationally constituted panel resolving cross-border disputes) seated in Paris under ICC Rules (the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce). The respondent – a Delaware LLC (a limited liability company incorporated under Delaware corporate legislation) – held its most significant assets in the United States. When voluntary payment did not materialise, the client faced a challenge that many international creditors underestimate: translating a foreign arbitral award into enforceable rights against US-held assets.
Award enforcement in the United States is governed by the New York Convention (the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards), to which the United States is a signatory. A successful applicant must petition a competent US District Court and demonstrate that the award meets the Convention's recognition criteria. The process typically spans several months from filing to a confirmed judgment, though contested proceedings can extend that timeline considerably.
This case study traces the strategy, key milestones. Additionally. Complications encountered in obtaining recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in the United States. and identifies three transferable lessons for cross-border creditors facing similar situations.
Client profile and the challenge at hand
The client was a mid-sized European software company with no prior US litigation history. It had entered a licensing agreement with a US counterparty structured as a Delaware LLC. The agreement contained an arbitration clause designating Paris as the seat of arbitration and adopting ICC Rules as the procedural regime.
After the counterparty terminated the agreement in disputed circumstances and withheld a substantial licence fee, the client initiated arbitration. The arbitral tribunal issued an award in the client's favour within approximately eighteen months of the proceedings commencing. The award covered the unpaid licence fee and the client's allocated costs of the arbitration.
The respondent declined to pay voluntarily. Asset investigation confirmed that the LLC held bank accounts and receivables in the United States, with no meaningful assets in France or elsewhere in Europe. Enforcement in the US was the only viable path to recovery. The client had no existing relationship with US litigation counsel and no prior experience before a US District Court.
The core challenge was threefold. First, the client needed to identify the correct federal court – the one with personal or property jurisdiction over the respondent. Second, it needed to anticipate and neutralise the defences available to the respondent under the New York Convention. Third, it needed to move quickly enough to prevent asset dissipation before a confirmed judgment could be obtained.
Legal strategy: sequencing jurisdiction, speed, and defence management
The strategy rested on three pillars, each addressed in a defined sequence.
Pillar one – jurisdiction selection. The New York Convention permits enforcement in any US federal court with jurisdiction over the respondent or its assets. The respondent's principal place of business and its main bank accounts were located in a single state. Filing in the US District Court for that district gave the court both personal jurisdiction over the LLC and proximity to the assets targeted for enforcement. Filing in a different district – for example, in Delaware as the state of incorporation – would have added complexity without tactical advantage.
For clients handling related disputes, our detailed analysis of litigation and arbitration strategy in the United States covers the full range of federal and state court options available to foreign award creditors.
Pillar two – speed and interim protection. US civil procedure rules permit a petitioner to seek an attachment order over the respondent's assets at an early stage of enforcement proceedings. The application was filed simultaneously with the enforcement petition. Supporting evidence documented the outstanding award amount, the location of the respondent's bank accounts, and the risk of transfer. The court issued a limited attachment order within days of the filing. This froze a defined portion of the LLC's US accounts pending the outcome of the enforcement petition.
Pillar three – anticipating New York Convention defences. Under the New York Convention's recognition regime, a respondent may resist enforcement on a defined set of grounds. These include: lack of a valid arbitration agreement; failure of due process in the arbitral proceedings; an award that exceeds the scope of the submission to arbitration; and public policy considerations. The petition was structured to address each potential defence pre-emptively, with supporting exhibits drawn from the arbitral record. This approach compressed the respondent's room to manoeuvre when it filed its opposition.
The team also engaged AAA arbitration (American Arbitration Association) precedent and JAMS (Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services) practice guidelines as interpretive reference points, given their familiarity to US federal judges handling award enforcement matters.
Key milestones and complications encountered
The enforcement petition was filed approximately six weeks after the ICC award was issued. The attachment application was heard on an expedited basis within the first two weeks of filing. The court confirmed the attachment order, covering the identified bank accounts.
The respondent filed opposition papers raising two principal arguments. First, it contended that the arbitration agreement was not validly formed under US contract law. an argument that required the client to demonstrate. Through the arbitral record, that formation had been litigated and resolved within the arbitration itself. Second, it raised a due process argument, asserting that it had not been given adequate opportunity to present its case before the arbitral tribunal.
Both defences were rejected. Courts applying the New York Convention in the United States consistently give significant weight to the findings of an arbitral tribunal on matters within its jurisdiction, including the validity of the arbitration agreement. The due process defence failed on the facts: the arbitral record showed that the respondent had been represented throughout the proceedings and had filed substantive submissions.
A complication arose mid-proceedings when the respondent sought to transfer a portion of its US receivables to a related entity. The existing attachment order did not cover those receivables by name. A supplemental motion was filed to extend the attachment to the identified receivables. The court granted the extension within approximately ten days. This episode illustrated a non-obvious risk in US enforcement proceedings: attachment orders must be drafted to capture specific asset categories with precision. Overly narrow drafting creates gaps that a resourceful respondent can exploit.
The US District Court confirmed the foreign arbitral award and entered judgment in the client's favour approximately five months after the initial petition was filed. Post-judgment collection proceeded against the attached accounts. The matter involved no SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) regulatory dimension. Though the respondent's receivables arose from a regulated contract. a factor that required careful characterisation in the enforcement papers to avoid confusion with any securities law objection.
For related matters involving shareholder and commercial disputes in the US corporate context, the firm's experience in corporate disputes in the United States provides a complementary perspective on managing multi-layered US litigation risk.
To discuss how an enforcement strategy of this kind could be structured for your matter, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Three transferable lessons for cross-border creditors
Lesson one – jurisdiction selection determines the pace of everything. Filing in the district where the respondent's assets are located. Rather than the state of incorporation or the seat of arbitration, gives the enforcing court direct reach over the assets from day one. A mismatch between the filing district and the asset location requires additional procedural steps – registration of a foreign judgment in a second district, or separate collection proceedings – that add months and cost.
Lesson two – the attachment application is not optional for high-value awards. The period between award issuance and confirmed US judgment is the interval of highest risk for asset dissipation. A respondent that is aware of an imminent enforcement filing has both the motive and, often, the ability to restructure its asset position. Filing the attachment application simultaneously with the petition – and drafting it broadly enough to cover all identifiable asset categories – is the single most effective risk-reduction step available to an enforcing party.
Lesson three – the arbitral record is the foundation of the enforcement case. Every document that will later be needed to defeat a New York Convention defence must be generated and preserved within the arbitral proceedings themselves. This includes clear records of service of all arbitral process documents on the respondent. A well-reasoned tribunal decision on any jurisdictional objections raised during arbitration. Additionally, a final award that stays within the scope of the submitted claims. Gaps in the arbitral record cannot be filled at the enforcement stage. The enforcing party is bound by what the UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) framework and the Convention require: a complete, self-contained arbitral record.
Practitioners handling comparable enforcement matters – whether under AAA arbitration rules, JAMS procedures, or ICC Rules – will recognise that these three lessons apply regardless of the institutional rules governing the underlying arbitration. The New York Convention's recognition criteria operate independently of the arbitral institution. What matters is the quality of the arbitral record and the speed with which enforcement is pursued once an award is issued.
Engaging a lawyer in the United States with cross-border enforcement experience is often the decisive factor in the interval between award and confirmed judgment. A law firm with United States enforcement capabilities and direct access to European arbitral systems is positioned to manage both ends of that process without the coordination delays that arise when separate counsel handle each jurisdiction in isolation.
For a preliminary review of your award enforcement position in the United States, email info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our dispute resolution practice combines Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition to deliver cross-border enforcement solutions for clients holding foreign arbitral awards and judgments. We advise international businesses, institutional investors, and in-house legal teams on award enforcement, recognition proceedings, and interim asset protection before US District Courts and other federal and state forums. The firm's litigation and arbitration team includes practitioners with experience before ICC, LCIA, and UNCITRAL tribunals, and in enforcement proceedings in both civil law and common law jurisdictions. As an international law firm with United States enforcement capabilities, Ferraz & Whitmore supports clients from petition filing through to post-judgment collection. You may also find our case study on foreign judgment enforcement in Brazil relevant if your recovery strategy spans multiple jurisdictions in the Americas. To discuss your enforcement matter, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.