KluwerArbitration ITA Arbitration Report, Volume No. XXIV, Issue No. 2 (February 2026)
July 19, 2026
The Institute of Transnational Arbitration (ITA), in collaboration with the ITA Board of Reporters, is happy to inform you that the latest ITA Arbitration Report was published: a free email subscription service available at KluwerArbitration.com delivering timely reports on awards, cases, legislation and current developments from over 60 countries and 12 institutions. To get your free subscription to the ITA Arbitration Report, click here.
The ITA Board of Reporters have reported on the following awards.
Gaurav Lavania, ITA Assistant Editor
The Tribunal held that the Owner was entitled to recover from the Charterer both the outstanding final hire balance of USD 78,654.47 and USD 200,000 paid by the Owner to settle the unpaid bunker supplier’s claim to avoid the arrest of the vessel. The Tribunal rejected the Charterer’s contention that the Owner was obliged to mitigate its loss by agreeing to a repayment plan in respect of the admitted hire debt, holding that mitigation has no relevance to an admitted debt and that a creditor is under no obligation to accept deferred payment arrangements. The Tribunal further held that the Owner’s direct settlement with the bunker supplier was a reasonable step taken in mitigation of a potential indemnity claim and possible arrest related losses, particularly where the Charterer itself had suggested that the Owner settle with the supplier to avoid arrest. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded the Owner USD 278,654.47 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum, compounded at three monthly rests, and also awarded the Owner its costs, the Tribunal’s fees, and interest thereon.
BRIDGE Housing Corporation v. Addie Smith (Final Award), JAMS Case No. 5100003374, 23 December 2025
Gaurav Lavania, ITA Assistant Editor
The Tribunal held in favour of BRIDGE Housing Corporation on its claims for defamation and tortious interference with economic relations against its former employee, Addie Smith, arising out of a post-termination campaign of defamatory communications directed at BRIDGE’s funders, lenders, board members, and other business partners. The Tribunal also rejected the Respondent’s counterclaim for retaliatory termination under Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.199, holding that the Respondent had failed to establish a causal link between any alleged protected activity and her termination, and that BRIDGE had proved numerous legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the termination. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had repeatedly violated a preliminary injunction and other arbitral orders, including by continuing to publish defamatory statements and distribute covert recordings, and accordingly imposed terminating sanctions under JAMS Rule 29, entered judgment against the Respondent, and granted a permanent injunction. In the final award, the Tribunal further granted BRIDGE attorneys’ fees of USD 192,587.10 and costs of USD 40,216.58, with all amounts carrying 9 per cent interest under Oregon law, payable immediately.
Gaurav Lavania, ITA Assistant Editor
The Tribunal held that the franchisee and guarantors were liable to Choice Hotels International, Inc. for breach of a Franchise Agreement concerning the construction and operation of an 80-room MainStay Hotel. The Tribunal found that the Respondents had failed to commence and complete construction, and had never opened the hotel within the time required under the Franchise Agreement, even after an extension of the construction start deadline. The Tribunal further held that the Guaranty executed by the Respondents was valid and enforceable under Maryland law, which governed the agreement, and that, as a suretyship, it did not require separate consideration. The Respondents’ contention that the USD 25,000 affiliation fee should be refunded or credited was rejected, the Tribunal holding that the fee had been fully earned upon execution of the Franchise Agreement and was expressly non-refundable. The Claimant was awarded liquidated damages of USD 115,200, together with arbitration costs and arbitrator’s fees of USD 8,516.67, making a total award of USD 123,716.67, payable jointly, individually, and severally by the Respondents within 30 days.
Cobelfret S.A. v. Joint Faith Shipping Co., Ltd (Partial Final Award), 17 March 2025
Gaurav Lavania, ITA Assistant Editor
The Tribunal held that the Cobelfret S.A., the Owner, was entitled, under the charterparty and in particular the war risks provisions and the express recap wording, to route the vessel Alberta via the Cape of Good Hope rather than the Red Sea and Suez Canal, where the Owner reasonably considered that transit through the Red Sea exposed the vessel, crew, and cargo to war risks arising from Houthi attacks and the perceived United Kingdom links of the vessel’s commercial management. The Tribunal further held that, Joint Faith Shipping Co. Ltd., the Charterer’s deductions from hire on account of alleged off-hire, deviation, berth failure, and related costs were unlawful, and that the Owner was entitled to recover hire, bunker-related adjustments, and terminal costs incurred following suspension of services for non-payment of hire. The Owner succeeded in its principal claim for USD 364,463.20 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum compounded with 3 monthly rests from 15 May 2024 until payment in full. The Tribunal also awarded the Owner its reasonable legal costs and reserved jurisdiction in relation to the Owner’s separate claim for EU Emissions Trading Scheme Allowances and for the assessment of costs.
Gaurav Lavania, ITA Assistant Editor
The Tribunal held that the South Carolina choice of law provisions contained in four title loan agreements were unenforceable because their enforcement would be contrary to the fundamental public policy of North Carolina in protecting its resident borrowers. Although the loan agreements were executed at the Respondent’s office in South Carolina, the Tribunal found that the Respondent had engaged in sufficient contractual activities within North Carolina, including solicitation of the Claimant while he was in North Carolina, recording liens on North Carolina vehicle titles, and accepting payments from North Carolina, thereby attracting the application of the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act. The Tribunal further held that the violation of the Consumer Finance Act also constituted a violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Claimant was awarded USD 21,356.28 under the Consumer Finance Act and damages of USD 64,068.84 under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, together with punitive damages of USD 125,000 in the event the compensatory route was elected, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. Jurisdiction was reserved for final award in respect of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Gaurav Lavania, ITA Assistant Editor
The ICDR Tribunal held that the Respondent repudiated and breached a New York law-governed Sales Representation Agreement dated 17 April 2019 by selling all of its assets substantially without ensuring continuity of the agreement, violating exclusivity obligations, and failing to repurchase inventory following repudiation. The Tribunal awarded the Claimant USD 8,730,626 in damages and interest, rejected all counterclaims, and confirmed that the Respondent’s insolvency proceedings in Germany did not preclude continuation of the arbitration or passing of a final merits award.
Gaurav Lavania, ITA Assistant Editor
The Tribunal held that the Respondent was liable for breach of contract for failing to pay the outstanding purchase price for shipments of apple juice concentrate supplied by the Claimant. The Tribunal further held that the Respondent’s corporate veil should be pierced and that its managers, Peter Chakiris, Chad Azzaline, and John Moore, were jointly and severally personally liable for the debt, where the evidence, together with adverse inferences drawn from the Respondent’s failure to comply with document production orders, showed that the Respondent was underfunded or undercapitalized when it entered into the contract and had used the corporate form in a manner that hindered the Claimant’s ability to recover the sums due. The Claimant was awarded damages of USD 288,034.50, together with pre award interest, attorneys’ fees, and a direction that the Respondent and its managers also reimburse the arbitration costs. Post award interest at 12 per cent per annum was also awarded until payment in full.
Gephar LLC v. Danstar Ferment AG (Final Award), ICC Case No. 19890/EM, 05 August 2015
Hagar Radman, ITA Assistant Editor
The dispute arose under a Shareholders' Agreement governing a Swiss pharmaceutical joint venture between Gephar LLC, a U.S. minority shareholder, and Danstar Ferment AG, a Swiss majority shareholder affiliated with the Lallemand Group. The core question was whether Danstar had a contractual obligation, under Clause 5 of the Shareholders' Agreement, to cause the joint venture company Lallemand Pharma International AG to distribute dividends following the expiry of a five-year blocking period. Gephar further alleged that Danstar had abused its rights by exercising a call option to acquire Gephar's shares without first distributing accumulated profits.
The ICC Tribunal, seated in Zug and applying Swiss law, rejected all of Gephar's claims. It held that the Shareholders' Agreement imposed no automatic obligation to distribute dividends after the blocking period, and that the obligation to meet and determine the future dividend policy "in good faith" constituted only a best-efforts clause, not an obligation of result. The Tribunal further found that the exercise of the call option was neither untimely nor an abuse of rights. Gephar was ordered to bear the full costs of the arbitration of USD 330,000 and to pay Danstar CHF 250,000 in legal costs.
Hagar Radman, ITA Assistant Editor
The dispute arose from franchise agreements between Serendipity Labs, a coworking space franchisor, and a group of franchisees operating under Development and Franchise Agreements for locations in Indiana, Arizona, and Pittsburgh. Serendipity alleged material breaches, including non-payment of continuing service fees and failure to develop contracted locations. The franchisees counterclaimed, alleging fraudulent inducement through false financial performance representations.
The Tribunal, applying New York substantive law, found entirely in favour of the Claimants (Serendipity). It held that the Respondents had materially breached the Indiana agreements, dismissed all counterclaims on the merits and on statute of limitations grounds, and awarded Serendipity USD 566,769 in damages, USD 1,590,663 in attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief enforcing post-termination and non-competition obligations, and interest at 12% per annum, all jointly and severally against the Respondents.
Ashurst LLP v. Granite Creek Energy LLC (Final Award), LCIA Case No. 256522, 20 June 2025
Mısra Yalçın, ITA Assistant Editor
Respondent has hired Claimant, a law firm, to act for Respondent in relation to a corporate acquisition project to purchase the entire issued capital of a company. Claimant sought recovery of unpaid invoices for its fees from Respondent under an Engagement Letter and its Terms of Business following the abort of the project. Respondent failed to submit a defence in the LCIA arbitration. The Sole Arbitrator held that Claimant had validly invoiced Respondent, who acknowledged its debt, and awarded Claimant the outstanding invoices, unbilled fees, interest, and arbitration/legal costs.
Mısra Yalçın, ITA Assistant Editor
A Sole Arbitrator held that a South Carolina lender violated North Carolina consumer protection statutes by issuing high-interest vehicle title loans to a North Carolina resident. Applying a conflict-of-laws analysis, the Arbitrator declined to enforce the contractual choice-of-law clause in favor of South Carolina law, finding that doing so would contravene North Carolina’s fundamental public policy. The Arbitrator determined that the loans were void under North Carolina law and that the lender’s conduct constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices. It awarded compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees, rejecting defenses based on the Federal Arbitration Act, due process, and constitutional limitations.
Mısra Yalçın, ITA Assistant Editor
This arbitration concerns a dispute arising out of a stop-loss insurance policy issued by Respondent insurer in connection with Claimant’s self-funded employee health plan. The dispute followed the insurer’s denial of coverage for substantial medical expenses incurred by an employee. Respondent denied coverage on the basis of alleged misrepresentation and non-disclosure during the underwriting process, as well as the employee’s alleged ineligibility under the plan. Claimant initiated arbitration asserting breach of contract and statutory bad faith, while Respondent raised counterclaims including misrepresentation, rescission, and equitable reformation. The Sole Arbitrator found that the employee was eligible for coverage, that Claimant had satisfied the policy’s proof of loss requirements, and that no material misrepresentation or non-disclosure had occurred. The Sole Arbitrator awarded Claimant compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and dismissed all counterclaims.
Wynwood Capital LLC v. Brian William Peachey (Final Award), MCA Claim No. 46174/2025, 20 June 2025
Mısra Yalçın, ITA Assistant Editor
The dispute arises out of Respondent’s guarantee for the Merchant Agreement and Security Agreement for the Purchase Sale of Future Receivables Agreement, which Claimant and Florida Structure are parties to, for a non-recourse merchant cash advance transaction. Respondent is guarantor for performance of Florida Structure’s obligations under the Agreement. Claimant initiated this arbitration against Respondent, due to Florida Structural’s failure to meet its obligations under the Agreement by preventing Claimant from collecting the Purchased Amount. The Sole Arbitrator found that Respondent had a performance guarantee for Florida Structural’s obligations under the Agreement, and has defaulted to meet its obligations. Therefore, Claimant was found to be entitled for all liquidated damages under the Agreement.
Comments (0)
Your email address will not be published.
You may also like
July 14, 2026
