Trans Chemical Ltd. v. China National MacHinery Import & Export Corp.

161 F.3d 314, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 30834, 1998 WL 801942
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 8, 1998
Docket97-20695
StatusPublished
Cited by43 cases

This text of 161 F.3d 314 (Trans Chemical Ltd. v. China National MacHinery Import & Export Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Trans Chemical Ltd. v. China National MacHinery Import & Export Corp., 161 F.3d 314, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 30834, 1998 WL 801942 (5th Cir. 1998).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CMC) appeals the district court’s confirmation of an arbitral award rendered against it. We affirm.

On appeal, CMC raises four issues: (1) Is CMC, a Chinese corporation, an “agent or instrumentality of a foreign state” under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1603, such that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the arbi-tral award rendered against CMC, 28 U.S.C. § 1330? (2) Was the arbitral award “not considered as domestic ... in the State where [its] recognition and enforcement are sought” such that the district court could enforce it pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517 (1970), reprinted in 9 U.S.C. § 201? (3) Did the contract between CMC and TCL involve “commerce” such that the district court could enforce the arbitration award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2? (4) Did the district court err in refusing to vacate the award under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1)?

We agree with the district court’s analysis of these issues and therefore adopt Parts I-V of its careful and comprehensive opinion, In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Ltd. & China National Machinery Import & Export Corp., 978 F.Supp. 266 (S.D.Tex.1997). 1 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1

. We do not, of course, imply that the other portions of the opinion are in any way erroneous.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Guardian Flt v. Med Evaluators
140 F.4th 613 (Fifth Circuit, 2025)
Durant v. Paxton
N.D. Texas, 2025
Brown v. Genesis Finance
S.D. Texas, 2025
Ameripath, Inc. and DFW 5.01(a) Corporation v. Steven Hebert M.D.
447 S.W.3d 319 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)
Edumoz, LLC v. Republic of Mozambique
968 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (C.D. California, 2013)
Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. v. John Garrett, et
495 F. App'x 443 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
Sabrina Taylor v. Univ of Phoenix/Apollo Group
487 F. App'x 942 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
Good Times Stores, Inc. v. Martha MacIas
355 S.W.3d 240 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)
Sandra Parker v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.
426 F. App'x 285 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)
Trinidad Barahona v. Dillard Dept Stores, Inc.
376 F. App'x 395 (Fifth Circuit, 2010)
Asbury v. A.W. Chesterton Company
Superior Court of Rhode Island, 2010
MPJ v. Aero Sky, L.L.C.
673 F. Supp. 2d 475 (W.D. Texas, 2009)
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. NL Industries
553 F. Supp. 2d 733 (S.D. Texas, 2008)
McGrath v. FSI Holdings, Inc.
246 S.W.3d 796 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Apache Bohai Corp. LDC v. Texaco China BV
480 F.3d 397 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
Laws v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
452 F.3d 398 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 F.3d 314, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 30834, 1998 WL 801942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trans-chemical-ltd-v-china-national-machinery-import-export-corp-ca5-1998.