Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a federal court had jurisdiction under § 203 to stay incompatible arbitration proceedings despite “dicta” in Hydra Offshore suggesting otherwise
• explaining that “the Convention should be interpreted broadly to effectuate its recognition and enforcement purposes” (emphasis added)
• noting that “gateway matters,” like waiver, estoppel, and delay “are presumptively reserved for the arbitrator’s resolution”
• noting that in addition to invoking the UNCITRAL Rules, Chevron “argued that questions of arbitrability are for the arbitral panel”
• explaining that a bilateral investment agreement is an agreement between two sovereign states that in effect constitutes a unilateral standing offer to submit to arbitration with investors of the other sovereign when certain conditions are met
• listing elements under general preclusion principles, including “(1) the identical issue was raised in a previous proceeding” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting N.L.R.B. v. Thalbo Corp., 171 F.3d 102, 109 (2d Cir. 1999))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).