USA – FLORIDA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Harry Burnett, Barry Kamar, Renzo Seminario Córdova and Marcio Vasconcellos, King & Spalding LLP
Introduction This short commentary reviews recent cases and trends on Florida’s arbitration law. Florida state law contemplates two arbitration statutes: • the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (RFAC), Sec - tions 682.01 to 682.25, Fla. Stat., which governs domestic arbitration and is based on the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act; and • the Florida International Commercial Arbitration Act (ICAA), Sections 684.0001 to 684.0049, Fla. Stat., which governs international arbitration and is based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”). In addition to a modern statutory framework, in 2016 the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade county established the Miami International Arbitration Court (MIAC), one of only three courts in the US specialising in international commercial arbitration. These pro-arbitration statutory and judicial develop - ments are supported by a host of institutional efforts and events from the International Chamber of Com - merce (ICC), the Miami International Arbitration Soci - ety (MIAS), the International Bar Association (IBA), the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), the American Arbitration Association’s International Centre for Dis - pute Resolution (ICDR), and the robust domestic and international arbitration programmes offered by the University of Miami School of Law and Florida Interna - tional University College of Law, to name a few. These developments continue to contribute to a mature international arbitration framework in Florida and to the high-quality decisions coming from the Eleventh Circuit, especially since the establishment of MIAC. The following overview of recent decisions identifies some significant trends, particularly towards greater clarity and predictability.
Trends and Developments: Recent Decisions Section 10 of the FAA provides the standards for review of international arbitral awards issued in the United States, not the New York Convention In Corporación AIC, SA v Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita S.A. , 66 F.4th 876 (11th Cir. 2023), the Eleventh Circuit (en banc) held that the grounds set forth in Section 10 of the FAA govern vacatur of international arbitral awards issued in the United States, not the grounds enumerated in Article V of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbi - tral Awards (the “New York Convention”). The case expressly overruled Industrial Risk Insurers v M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshutte GmbH , 141 F.3d 1434 (11th Cir. 1998), and resolved a long-standing circuit split on the applicable standards governing vacatur of domestic international arbitral awards. In the 1998 case Industrial Risk , the Eleventh Circuit had held that international arbitral awards issued in the United States were only reviewable under the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement under Article V of the New York Convention, not the grounds for vacatur under Section 10 of the FAA. Relying on Industrial Risk , the district court in Hidroe- léctrica Santa Rita refused to hear a motion to vacate the award alleging that the tribunal had “exceeded its powers” because this is not an express ground for vacatur found in the New York Convention ( Hidroeléc- trica at 881). A panel of the Eleventh Circuit concluded that it was bound by Industrial Risk and affirmed the district court but opined that the precedent and its progeny were wrongly decided. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the panel opinion and ordered rehearing en banc. On en banc rehearing, the Eleventh Circuit distin - guished between national courts’ vacatur review (primary jurisdiction) and review for the purpose of recognition and enforcement of foreign awards (sec - ondary jurisdiction) and held that the New York Con - vention only applies to the latter ( Hidroeléctrica at 883). The Court unanimously overruled Industrial Risk and its progeny Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. v Del Monte Int’l GmbH , 921 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2019), and clarified that international arbitral awards issued in the United States shall be governed under Chapter 1 of the FAA (“ Industrial Risk
906 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook