On Annulled Arbitral Awards and the Death of Chromalloy

Abstract

The Chromalloy decision in the United States provoked great controversy a dozen years ago by enforcing an arbitral award that had been annulled by the courts of primary jurisdiction. The basis for the court’s decision – Article VII of the New York Convention – was never thought to be particularly sound, but the result was debated and endorsed in some of the academic writing that followed. The debate has largely been put to rest in the United States by judicial decisions creating a strong presumption against enforcement of annulled awards and specifically rejecting the position advanced in Chromalloy. This article traces the evolution of the judicial response in the United States, which has been based on both the structure of the New York Convention and comity concerns, and suggests that the strong commitment to comity is likely to enhance the respect accorded to arbitration in foreign courts, particularly in the developing world, and will best serve the interests of the international arbitration system, including the interest in finality of awards.