Suhasini (Su) Rao<\/a><\/strong>, International Arbitration Associate at White & Case<\/strong><\/a>
Camille Esnou<\/strong>, International Arbitration Fellow at White & Case<\/strong><\/a>
Juan Felipe Silva Bustamante<\/strong>, International Arbitration Fellow at White & Case<\/strong><\/a>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\nThis article was featured in Jus Mundi<\/a>‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review<\/strong>, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nDownload now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nIn 2025, New York remained a popular choice of arbitral seat and governing law for the resolution of commercial disputes across a range of industries. This chapter highlights key trends and developments relevant to arbitrations with a New York nexus in 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nStudies and Reports on Arbitrating in New York<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nICC Dispute Resolution Statistics<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In June 2025, the International Chamber of Commerce<\/a> (\u201cICC<\/strong>\u201d) published its Dispute Resolution Statistics for 2024.<\/a> New York law was the applicable law in 40 cases registered with the ICC in 2024, ranking fifth most frequently selected applicable law globally, and first among North American jurisdictions. New York was the fourth most popular seat of arbitration, with 37 ICC cases registered in 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nAAA-ICDR Dispute Resolution Data<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In 2025, the international division of the New York-based American Arbitration Association (\u201cAAA<\/strong>\u201d), the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (\u201cICDR<\/strong>\u201d)<\/a>, published the 2024 ICDR Dispute Resolution Data<\/a>. A total of 811 international cases and 102 international mediations were filed. Most parties were from the U.S. (869 of 1,372 parties), followed by Canada, China, and the U.K. New York was the most frequently chosen seat, ahead of Miami and Los Angeles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n2025 International Arbitration Survey (QMUL with White & Case)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The 2025 International Arbitration Survey by Queen Mary University of London and White & Case<\/a> reported that, among respondents asked to identify five preferred seats for their region, New York was identified by 50% of North American, 48% of Caribbean\/Latin American, and 13% of global respondents. These figures are comparable to those reported in the 2021 edition of the Survey<\/a>, which reported that New York was identified as a preferred seat by 46% of North American, 46% of Caribbean\/Latin American, and 12% of global respondents. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nEnforceability of Arbitration Agreements and Awards<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The enforcement of international arbitration agreements and awards in New York is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards<\/a> of 1958 (\u201cNew York Convention<\/strong>\u201d), as incorporated into the Federal Arbitration Act<\/a> (\u201cFAA<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 2025, a federal appellate decision confirmed that the courts of New York will not assume jurisdiction to vacate foreign arbitral awards issued in an arbitration seated outside the U.S., even if the underlying agreement contains a New York forum selection clause. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- In July 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in Molecular Dynamics, Ltd. v Spectrum Dynamics Med. Ltd.<\/em><\/a>, declining a petition to vacate arbitral awards issued in a Geneva-seated arbitration governed by New York law.\u00a0 \u00a0
The dispute arose from a licensing agreement between two biotechnology companies relating to medical imaging technology. The tribunal awarded Spectrum Dynamics USD 7.5M plus interest as repayment for a loan it had made to Molecular Dynamics, along with USD 6.9M in costs and attorneys\u2019 fees.\u00a0 The agreement provided for disputes to be resolved through arbitration seated in Geneva, under the laws of New York.\u00a0 It also contained a forum selection clause providing that \u201con matters . . . concerning the Chosen Arbitration,\u201d the courts of New York would have \u201cexclusive jurisdiction.\u201d
Following the issuance of the award, Molecular Dynamics initiated proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking vacatur.\u00a0 Molecular Dynamics argued that Spectrum Dynamics had consented to the jurisdiction of the court by agreeing to the New York forum selection clause.\u00a0 The district court denied the petition, and that decision was subsequently appealed.\u00a0 The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court\u2019s decision, holding that the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to vacate the award because, under the New York Convention, only the courts of the country of the award\u2019s seat or governing law may grant vacatur. The Court of Appeals also held that this was not modified by the forum selection clause, because subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by contract.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\nTwo different federal appellate decisions issued in 2025 also highlight the circumstance-based approach that New York will take when deciding whether to enforce an agreement to arbitrate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- In May 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd\u2019s, London v. 3131 Veterans Blvd. LLC<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 The court enforced arbitration agreements despite a challenge based on conflicting state law.\u00a0
The dispute arose out of insurance contracts governed by New York law, with New York as the seat of arbitration.\u00a0 The insureds filed suit in Louisiana state court, arguing that Louisiana law prohibited arbitration in insurance contracts, rendering the arbitration agreements void.\u00a0 The insurers then filed a parallel action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to compel arbitration under the FAA and the New York Convention.\u00a0 The court ultimately rejected the insureds\u2019 arguments and enforced the arbitration agreements.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- In July 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in Doyle v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc.<\/a><\/em>\u00a0 The court declined to enforce an arbitration agreement, on the basis that the arbitration agreement had been waived by a party who had failed to invoke it earlier in the litigation. \u00a0
The dispute arose out of a client relationship agreement entered into by the plaintiff trustees of a foundation with UBS.\u00a0 The trustees of the foundation sued UBS, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under U.S. federal and New York state law. \u00a0UBS had initially filed a motion to dismiss without mentioning arbitration. \u00a0After the motion to dismiss was denied, UBS filed a motion to compel arbitration. \u00a0The court ultimately held that UBS\u2019s failure to mention arbitration in its motion to dismiss constituted a waiver of its right to arbitrate.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\nCourts in New York are also a common venue for parties to seek recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. In 2025, a New York district court clarified that recognition of a foreign monetary judgment did not require personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor. This is a notable contrast to when a party seeks to confirm a foreign arbitral award, for which a court in New York would require personal jurisdiction over the award debtor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- In February 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision in Cargill Fin. Servs. Int\u2019l, Inc. v. Barshchovskiy<\/em><\/a>, recognizing an English judgment in the amount of approximately USD 120M plus interest, which had been obtained by Cargill after it obtained an arbitration award in its favor, in an LCIA arbitration. \u00a0
The LCIA arbitration was initiated by Cargill against Mr. Barshchovskiy to recover unpaid debts. \u00a0After the LCIA\u2019s award was rendered in favor of Cargill, the English Commercial Court rejected the defendant\u2019s application to set aside the award, and instead recognized it. Cargill then initiated proceedings in a federal court in New York seeking recognition of the English judgment. In recognizing the English judgment, the New York district court rejected the defendant\u2019s arguments that due process would be violated if the New York district court enforced the English judgment without having personal jurisdiction. \u00a0The court held that due process was not violated if a court recognized a foreign judgment even absent personal jurisdiction, provided that the foreign court protected the judgment debtor\u2019s due process rights. \u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nNew York: A Prime Venue for Commercial Disputes<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
New York continues to be a preferred choice for complex commercial disputes across a range of industries, including oil and gas, life sciences, and maritime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nOil and Gas Disputes<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A number of major oil and gas disputes were decided in New York-seated arbitrations in 2025, some of which are being challenged in courts in New York.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- In June 2025, an ICC tribunal in a New-York seated arbitration and applying New York law, issued an award in DM Construtora de Obras Limitada, Ventura Loca\u00e7\u00e3o de Equipamentos Limitada and Consorcio MGT v. Tupi B.V.<\/em>, ICC Case No. 24050\/GSS\/PFF\/RLS<\/a>. \u00a0The arbitration was initiated by Consorcio MGT (\u201cCMGT<\/strong>\u201d) (a consortium of Brazilian construction and equipment companies) against Tupi B.V. (a project company jointly owned by oil and gas majors Petrobras, Shell Brasil, and Petrogal Brasil).
The claims arose out of the construction of facilities for one of the world\u2019s biggest deepwater oil fields, off the coast of Rio de Janeiro, with CMGT claiming that it was entitled to additional compensation for the time and material to perform work outside the scope of the contract. \u00a0Tupi B.V. raised a series of counterclaims, seeking, inter alia<\/em>,a price reduction and reimbursements.\u00a0 The tribunal partially granted some of CMGT\u2019s claims and Tupi B.V.\u2019s counterclaims, which yielded a net favorable award for Tupi B.V of approximately USD 70 M.
In September 2024, CMGT brought a petition in New York federal court to vacate the award<\/a>.\u00a0 In addition to disputing CMGT\u2019s petition to vacate the award, in November 2025, Tupi B.V. filed a cross petition in New York federal court to confirm the award<\/a>. Those petitions are still pending as of the date of publication.
<\/li>\n\n\n\n- In August 2025, an ICC tribunal in a New York-seated arbitration issued an award in Shell NA LNG LLC v. Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC<\/em>, ICC Case No. 27797\/PDP, rejecting a USD 1.7B claim brought by Shell against a subsidiary of Venture Global<\/a>. \u00a0Shell\u2019s claim was based on the Venture Global subsidiary\u2019s failure to deliver liquefied natural gas under long-term agreements with Shell following significant delays in the Calcasieu Pass project, one of the largest LNG production facilities in the U.S. \u00a0In November 2025, Shell filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award in the Supreme Court of New York. \u00a0
In total, at least seven different companies have commenced arbitrations against Venture Global relating to the Calcasieu Pass project.\u00a0 One of these was an ICC arbitration, brought by Chinese state-owned entity Unipec, and settled in October 2025<\/a>. \u00a0Arbitral awards were also issued in two other cases since the Shell decision. \u00a0In October 2025, an ICC tribunal issued a partial award in favor of BP<\/a> on liability, with quantum to be decided in a subsequent phase. \u00a0As disclosed by Venture Global, BP was reportedly seeking damages in excess of USD 1B<\/a>. \u00a0Moreover, in January 2026, an ICC tribunal in a separate arbitration brought by Repsol LNG Holding, S.A., reportedly issued an award denying all of Repsol\u2019s claims and awarding fees to the subsidiary<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nLife Sciences Disputes<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
There continues to be an increase in life sciences arbitrations. The AAA-ICDR, which frequently administers arbitrations with a New York seat, reported 25 life sciences cases in 2024<\/a>, an increase from 19 life sciences cases in 2023<\/a>. Recent awards issued in 2025 highlight the use of New York law to decide large, complex life sciences disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- In April 2025, an ICC tribunal in a Washington D.C.-seated arbitration issued the Final Award in Novartis Pharma AG v. Genentech, Inc.<\/em>, ICC Case No. 27260\/PDP<\/a>, arising out of a New York-law governed license and collaboration agreement.\u00a0 The agreement provided Genentech with the exclusive commercial rights to an eye medication (ranibizumab, marketed as Lucentis) in the U.S., while providing that Novartis would have commercial rights outside of the U.S.\u00a0 Novartis claimed that Genentech had coordinated with Genentech\u2019s parent company (Roche) to develop another competing eye medication, (faricimab, marketed as Vabysmo), in breach of its agreement with Novartis. \u00a0
An award in Novartis\u2019 favor could have resulted in \u201ctens of billions of dollars\u201d in damages to Roche, with sales of Vabysmo surpassing USD 4 billion in early 2025<\/a>.\u00a0 However, in addition to denying Novartis\u2019 claim, the tribunal ordered Novartis to pay Genentech approximately USD 18M in arbitration and legal fees plus expenses. \u00a0In June 2025, Genentech filed a petition in the District Court for the District of Columbia to enforce the arbitration award.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n\n
- In August 2025, an International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (\u201cCPR<\/strong>\u201d) tribunal in a New York-seated arbitration issued the Final Award in Cipher Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.<\/em>, CPR Case No. G-24-38-AA<\/a>. The dispute arose from a pharmaceutical distribution and supply agreement governed by New York law.\u00a0 Under the agreement, Sun would be the exclusive distributor of an acne medication (Absorica) in the United States, for which it would pay Cipher royalties.
Amongst other claims, the dispute included concerns regarding the ownership of intellectual property created by Cipher.\u00a0 Cipher alleged that Sun improperly used Cipher\u2019s clinical trial data generated for U.S. regulatory approval of Absorica, by submitting it to Canadian regulators to obtain approval to market a low dose version of the medication (\u201cAbsorica LD\u201d) in Canada, without Cipher\u2019s consent. \u00a0The tribunal upheld Cipher\u2019s claim relating to the misuse of its data, awarding approximately CAD 4.2M for breach of the agreement, a 15% royalty on Canadian sales of the product, and 80% of its legal fees and expenses. \u00a0
In October 2025, Sun petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to partially vacate the award, and in November 2025, Cipher cross-moved to confirm it, with these applications pending as of publication.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n\n
- In August 2025, an ICC tribunal in a New York-seated arbitration issued an award in Viatris Healthcare (Pty.) Ltd. v. Sedia Biosciences Corporation<\/em>, ICC Case No. 27707\/PDP<\/a>. \u00a0The dispute, governed by New York law, arose from Sedia\u2019s termination of an exclusive license agreement.
Under the agreement, Viatris would commercialize a rapid HIV infection testing device developed by Sedia worldwide. Sedia subsequently terminated the agreement. \u00a0Viatris initiated the arbitration, alleging that Sedia had wrongfully terminated the agreement and Sedia\u2019s failure to maintain an underlying license with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (<\/strong>\u201cCDC<\/strong>\u201d) was a breach of contract. \u00a0Sedia brought several counterclaims and argued, amongst other things, that Viatris had not used commercially reasonable efforts to market the product and that Viatris had breached the contract by initiating litigation despite the arbitration agreement.
The tribunal awarded Viatris approximately USD 800K for Sedia\u2019s wrongful termination and failure to maintain the license with the CDC; and Sedia approximately USD 400K for Viatris\u2019s failure to comply with the dispute resolution provision by initiating parallel litigation and failing to pay amounts owed under purchase orders. \u00a0The award was subsequently confirmed<\/a> by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in December 2025.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nMaritime Law Disputes<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
New York continues to be a popular choice of law and seat for maritime disputes, with 2025 marking the 200th<\/sup> anniversary of the events underlying New York\u2019s first known maritime arbitration award<\/a>. Many of these arbitrations are conducted under the Maritime Arbitration Rules<\/a> of the Society of Maritime Arbitrators<\/a> (\u201cSMA<\/strong>\u201d). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
At least 24 final, partial, or interim awards<\/a> were issued in SMA arbitrations seated in New York during 2025. These arbitrations include disputes arising out of maritime contracts and governed by U.S. maritime law, as well as disputes governed by New York state law. The publicly reported arbitral decisions from 2025 included: a decision finding that a party did not waive its right to arbitrate insurance coverage for flooding and a lightning strike on a vessel<\/a>; an award of outstanding demurrage fees owed by a charterer of a vessel<\/a> that never participated in the arbitration; and a decision d<\/a>enying the owners\u2019 of a vessel leave to file an emergency application<\/a> relating to a suspension of hire payments by the charterers of the vessel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nRecent Updates from New York-based Arbitral Institutions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nAAA-ICDR<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In March 2025, the AAA-ICDR<\/a> published its Guidance on Arbitrators\u2019 Use of AI Tools<\/a>, which provides arbitrators with considerations when using artificial intelligence (\u201cAI<\/strong>\u201d) tools in their work. The guidance \u201cencourages arbitrators\u201d to embrace artificial intelligence tools while adhering to their ethical and professional obligations. In May 2025, the AAA-ICDR then published the AAAi Standards for AI in Alternative Dispute Resolution<\/a>, setting out standards the AAA-ICDR encourages administrators, arbitrators, and advocates to apply when using AI. The AAAi Standards provide a broad framework of ethical principles regarding the use of AI in alternative dispute resolution, while the AAA\u2011ICDR Guidance offers practical considerations to guide arbitrators in using AI tools. In November 2025, the AAA-ICDR launched the AI Arbitrator<\/a>, currently limited to documents-only construction disputes<\/a>. Under this mechanism, an artificial intelligence tool created by the AAA (in reliance on data from past AAA construction disputes) prepares a recommended draft award on the basis of party submissions. The recommended award is then reviewed and edited by a human arbitrator<\/a>, who finalizes and signs the award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nJAMS<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The New York-based JAMS<\/a> (formerly, Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.) is a frequently used arbitral institution for domestic U.S. disputes. In April 2024, JAMS published the JAMS Artificial Intelligence Disputes Clause, Rules and Protective Order,<\/a> which include the JAMS Rules Governing Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n\nDiscover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nDownload now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nABOUT THE AUTHORS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Suhasini (Su) Rao<\/a><\/strong><\/strong> is an International Arbitration Associate at White & Case LLP<\/strong><\/a>. Su helps advise states, state-owned entities, and multinational companies on complex arbitrations and litigation risks across a range of industries, including: automobile, aviation, energy, insurance, and pharmaceutical. In addition, she is also the current Secretary of the New York City Bar Association\u2019s International Law Committee. Su is qualified to practice in New York and Ontario, Canada.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Camille Esnou <\/strong>is an International Arbitration Fellow at White & Case LLP<\/strong><\/a>. Camille worked on commercial and civil litigation matters as an intern at Lenz & Staehelin in Geneva and as a mini pupil at barristers\u2019 chambers 12 King\u2019s Bench Walk and 11 South Square in London. Camille is UK- and U.S.-trained, holding an LL.B. from Cambridge University and an LL.M. from New York University, and passed the New York State Bar Exam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/2025-10-daniel-hemerly-ferreira-2-1024x362.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n