Summary
This D.C. Circuit opinion affirms the district court's decision to confirm two international arbitration awards in favor of Rutas de Lima S.A.C. against the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima. The underlying dispute arose from a Peruvian road concession contract, where Lima sought to vacate the awards alleging that the agreements were procured through corporate bribery and violated U.S. public policy. The appellate court found insufficient evidence linking the alleged bribes to the contract execution and concluded that the arbitral tribunals' factual findings adequately withstood judicial scrutiny under the Federal Arbitration Act and the New York Convention.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in refusing to vacate the arbitration awards on the ground that enforcement would violate U.S. public policy against contracts obtained through corruption.
- Whether the district court erred in refusing to vacate the first award on the ground that Rutas fraudulently denied the existence of responsive documents, thereby preventing Lima from presenting its case.
- Whether the district court erred in refusing to vacate the second award on the ground that the tribunal improperly refused to hear pertinent and material evidence.
Holdings
- The district court did not err; Lima failed to show a sufficient nexus between alleged bribes and the concession contract, and the court properly deferred to the arbitrators' findings.
- The district court did not err; Rutas did not withhold material documents and Lima suffered no prejudice.
- The district court did not err; the tribunal did not refuse to hear the evidence and Lima was not prejudiced.
Key quotations
“We agree with the District Court that we have no basis here to overturn the arbitration awards on public policy grounds.” (*4-9)
“The party seeking vacatur must establish that the arbitrator committed some error, and the error made a difference.” (*13)
“The tribunal never refused to admit the annexes; the district court correctly denied Lima’s claim that the second tribunal improperly refused to admit evidence.” (*20-21)
Factual background
In 2013 Lima and Rutas entered a concession contract for construction, improvement, and operation of urban roads in Lima, Peru. Lima alleged the contract and related amendments were procured through bribes paid by Odebrecht, Rutas' parent company. Two UNCITRAL arbitrations awarded Rutas damages; Lima sought vacatur on public‑policy, fraud, and misconduct grounds, which the district court rejected.
Procedural history
Lima sued in the District Court to vacate two UNCITRAL arbitration awards on public‑policy, fraud, and arbitrator‑misconduct grounds under the FAA. The district court denied the vacatur motions and confirmed the awards. Lima appealed, asserting the district court erred on each ground.