Confirmation of Arbitration Award – 14 March 2010
When Walter Bau sought confirmation of the Swiss arbitral award in the US with the US District Court in New York, Thailand opposed that petition on two grounds: (1) the “arbitrability” of the award (discussed in the prior blog post); and (2) forum non conveniens. The doctrine of forum non conveniens applies when the forum is oppressive and vexatious – totally inappropriate. Thailand argued the US was an oppressive and inappropriate forum to address any issues relating to the arbitration award.
“Thailand strongly asserts that the Parties and the disputes lack of contacts with the United States, coupled with the facts that Thailand has no assets in the United States, favors strongly in favor of dismissal”, said the US District Court. The US District Court seemed to show some sympathy to this argument, saying: “Thailand is correct that a lack of assets is a factor that weighs in favor of dismissal”.
But the US District Court also said that Walter Bau: “disputes that Thailand has no assets in the United States and that any search of assets should be the product of post judgment discovery.” Citing other reasons as well, the US District Court confirmed the Arbitral Award against Thailand on 14 March 2010.
Boeing 737 Seized in Germany – 12 July 2011
On 12 July 2011 a Boeing 737 is seized in Germany pursuant to a court order Walter Bau’s liquidator obtains to enforced the arbitration award. Later that week, in Thailand, news of this seizure appears in the press and the Thai government claims the seizure was improper because the jet did not really belong to the Thai government.
When asked why Thailand had not paid the arbitration award in the first place – after all, if it had been paid, there would have been no seizure of the plane – the press describes the Thai government’s response as follows:
The prime minister said a separate legal battle between the German company and the government was underway in New York, and that the Thai side was going to file an appeal with a court in the United States on July 29. Therefore, he said, there should have been no urgent need for German authorities to impound the plane. “Thailand is ready to follow the final court verdict [the appellate court in the US] even if it means we will have to pay the money. The government will not escape from the responsibility. Besides, we have lots of assets,” he said. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Kasit-seeks-a-meeting-with-German-deputy-FM-over-i-30160380.html
But wait a minute? Hadn’t Thailand previously argued that United States was the wrong forum for deciding the dispute?
Thailand Files it’s Opening Brief – 28 July 2011
In one short sentence of its 71 page opening brief, Thailand announces it is dropping its challenge on forum non conveniens grounds. Thailand now has no objection to the US Second Court of Appeals addressing their argument (summarized in the blog post above) that – under US law – the US District Court should conduct a de novo review the “arbitrability” of the dispute. Thailand also, of course, also acknowledges that: “The New York Convention affords the district court no power to vacate the Final Award [the arbitration award that is supposedly on appeal], and Thailand did not ask the district court to do so.”
But isn’t this curious? First, Thailand says the US is totally inappropriate, oppressive no less, for deciding any part of this dispute. But after the airplane seizure in Germany and questions are raised about why Thailand had not paid the award in the first place, Thailand argues it was not obliged to pay because the matter is still on appeal in the US. And then, in it’s opening brief, Thailand drops its objection to having the US courts address any part of this dispute.
Thai Law & Policy 