Section 207 of the FAA also provides that courts “shall” conhrm arbitration awards under the Convention unless one of the seven grounds for refusal provided in Article V of the Convention applies: Within three years after an arbitral award falling under the Convention is made, any party to the arbitration may apply to any court having jurisdiction under this chapter for an order confirming the award as against any other party to the arbitration. l’he court s/ia!! confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds lbr refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the award specified in the said Convention. 9 U.S.C. § 207 (emphasis added). In discharging this duty, the Second Circuit has held that a district court’s review of a foreign arbitral award governed by the New York Convention is “strictly limited.”

If not, the Award should be entered as a judgment against it, jointly and severally, with ER CAPE. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Constellation respectfully requests that the Court confirm, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 207, the Award as a judgment of this Court in its favor and against Respondents, jointly and severally, in the sum of $7,577,600 plus £40,559 900200.00001/6921411v.1 7 (converted to dollars at the date of judgment) and for other awards of costs and order Respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the sums due thereunder, and grant such other relief as may be fair and equitable.

9 U.S.C. § 302 (“Incorporation by 2 If for any reason, the Panama Convention is found not to apply American Partner seeks in the alternative that the Final Award by confirmed pursuant to the New York Convention and Chapter 2 of the FAA. Case 4:15-cv-01440 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/28/15 Page 3 of 5 4 Reference”) incorporating 9 U.S.C. § 207. 19.

In this matter, Petitioners seek, and shall demonstrate their entitlement to, enforcement on whatever schedule the Court should direct. Petitioners have filed their Petition because they are faced with the imminent expiration of the three-year statute of limitations to Case 1:14-cv-08445-WHP Document 10 Filed 11/10/14 Page 3 of 8 confirm their rights under the Award, see 9 U.S.C. § 207, and cannot ensure that the Nigerian courts will have rendered a final judgment on the pending actions to enforce or annul the Award prior to the running ofthe limitations period. (Snodgrass Decl.

Moreover, at least one party to the arbitration is a foreign entity (Respondent Team Tankers A.S.). 9 U.S.C. § 207 provides the procedural mechanism by which the Respondents may enforce the Award. Respondents' Cross-Motion, filed herewith, is filed on December 23, 2013.

Moreover, Petitioners are entitled to confirmation of their Petition as a matter of law. Section 207 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 207, requires that “[t]he court shall confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the award specified in the said Convention.” (Emphasis added.)

3 This Court recognized that Mr. Gatlin had failed to plead or argue any of the exceptions to the New York Convention. (DE:36:3). The Court noted that “the only conceivable exception would be “public policy” exception (DE:36:3), 9 U.S.C. § 207, which exception is to be applied narrowly, and should only be invoked where enforcement would violate the forum’s basic notions of morality and justice. Trans Chem. Ltd. v. China Nat’l Mach. Import & Export Corp., 161 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 1998); Indocomex Fibres Pte, Ltd. v. Cotton Co. Int’l, Inc., 916 F.Supp. 721 (W.D. Tenn. 1996). As this Court acknowledged, the exception is “a very slender exception reserved for decisions which violate the ‘most basic notions of morality and justice,’” such that even “arbitrary and capricious” decisions “do not qualify under this exception.” (DE:36:3-4).

Brandon, Jones, Sandall, Zeide, Kohn, Chalal & Musso, P.A. v, MedPartners, Inc., 312 F.3d 1349, 1357-58 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Here, enforcing the agreement by which all parties to this action are bound would require Mr. Gatlin, under controlling Swiss law, to seek such review of the CAS decision as may be available before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, in accordance with the 4 Even if an unduly generous reading of Mr. Gatlin’s complaint and motion could allow him to raise the “public policy” exception under the New York Convention, 9 U.S.C. § 207, that exception is to be applied narrowly, and should only be invoked where enforcement would violate the forum’s basic notions of morality and justice. Trans Chem.

See Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, Article V(b) (“Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if . . . [t]he party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case”); 9 U.S.C. § 207 (“court shall confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the award specified in the said Convention”).

Similarly, under the kiter-American Convention, a district court is required to confirm the award absent one of the grounds for refusal of recognition or enforcement specified in that Convention. Banco III, 257 F. Supp. 2d at 685-86; 9 U.S.C. § 302 (incorporating 9 U.S.C. § 207); see also Scandinavian Reins. Co. y. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 60, 78 (2d Cir. 2012) (confirming award under the FAA and the New York Convention).