Tag: SMA

Recent Award Highlights the Advantages of SMA Arbitration

John D. Kimball and Noe S. Hamra ●

A recent consolidated arbitration conducted under the rules of the Society of Maritime Arbitrators, Inc. (“SMA”) highlights several advantages of SMA arbitration for maritime and transportation disputes. The case is The M/V Della, SMA No. 4526 (2026). The dispute arose out of back-to-back booking notes for the carriage of approximately 10,000 to 12,000 metric tons of bagged polyester pellets from Taichung, Taiwan, to the United States, with one booking note between Centurion MPP Pte Ltd. (“Centurion”), as disponent owner, and Industrial Maritime Carriers, LLC (“IMC”), as charterer. There was a second booking note between IMC and DYLO, Inc. (“DYLO”), as sub-charterer.

The consolidation procedure in the SMA Rules was particularly important. Section 2 of the SMA Rules provides for consolidation of arbitrations before a single panel of three arbitrators when disputes arise under two or more contracts subject to the SMA Rules and involve common questions of fact or law, or substantially involve the same transaction or series of transactions. Section 2 provides for the panel to hear and decide the disputes and issue final and binding awards in the consolidated cases. In this matter, Centurion, IMC, and DYLO agreed to consolidate their disputes because the two booking notes were back-to-back and the claims involved many of the same facts and legal issues.

The consolidated hearings and briefing produced a more efficient and commercially coherent result than parallel proceedings would have offered. The same panel was able to decide Centurion’s claim against IMC and IMC’s pass-through claim against DYLO in a single proceeding, reducing the risk of inconsistent factual findings or conflicting rulings across separate arbitrations. Witnesses for all three parties testified and documents were produced by all parties. Consolidation of the arbitrations was especially important for IMC as the middle party in a pass-through situation.

Continue reading “Recent Award Highlights the Advantages of SMA Arbitration”

Service of Process in Arbitration Enforcement Actions

G. Evan Spencer and Noe S. Hamra ●

Maritime disputes often find their way to arbitration. Whether the arbitrations are sited in the United States or another country, collection of arbitration awards frequently requires that the prevailing party initiate a civil lawsuit to recognize and enforce the arbitration award in a U.S. federal court. In instances where the award debtor is foreign, serving process pursuant to U.S. rules often presents a significant hurdle to enforcing the award. 

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) provides that service of process can be effected on a foreign defendant by any internationally agreed means that is reasonably calculated to give notice or, if no such agreed means exists, by service reasonably calculated to give notice that is in compliance with the foreign country’s laws or in a manner otherwise not prohibited by that country’s laws or international agreement. Without effective service of process, U.S. courts are usually reticent to award a default judgment, and may be forced to grant a motion to dismiss under FRCP Rule 12(b).

The most common internationally agreed means of service arises under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Convention”). The Hague Convention provides for service through a ratifying country’s Central Authority, which is the governmental body designated to facilitate service of process. Service via the Central Authority is reliable and relatively cost effective, but can take a significant amount of time—sometimes more than six months—to accomplish, leading to increased delay and expense in enforcement actions. 

Continue reading “Service of Process in Arbitration Enforcement Actions”