Analysis, Recognition and Enforcement Procedures of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the United States

Korean businesses, and their legal representatives, have observed the improvements of enforcement of commercial judgments through arbitration over traditional collections litigation in U.S. Courts‐‐‐due to quicker proceedings, exceptional cost savings and more predictable outcomes‐‐‐in attaching assets within U.S. jurisdictions. But how are the 2016 interim measures implemented by the Arbitration Act of Korea utilized to avoid jurisdictional and procedure pitfalls of enforcement proceedings in the Federal Courts of the United States? Authors examine the necessary prerequisites of the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act as adopted through the New York Convention, to which Korea and the U.S. are signatories, as distinguished from the Panama Convention. Five common U.S. arbitration institutions address U.S. “domestic” disputes, preempting U.S. state law arbitrations, while this article focuses on U.S. enforcement of “international” arbitration awards. Seeking U.S. recognition and enforcement of Korean arbitral awards necessitates avoiding common defenses involving due process, public policy or documentary formality challenges. Provisional and conservatory injunctive relief measures are explored. A variety of U.S. cases involving Korean litigants are examined to illustrate the legal challenges involving non‐domestic arbitral awards, foreign arbitral awards and injunctive relief.Suggestions aimed toward further research are focused on typical Korean business needs such as motions to confirm foreign arbitration awards, enforce such awards or motions to compel arbitration.