THE AUTHORS:
Suhasini (Su) Rao, International Arbitration Associate at White & Case
Camille Esnou, International Arbitration Fellow at White & Case
Juan Felipe Silva Bustamante, International Arbitration Fellow at White & Case
This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, 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.
In 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.
Studies and Reports on Arbitrating in New York
ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics
In June 2025, the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) published its Dispute Resolution Statistics for 2024. 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.
AAA-ICDR Dispute Resolution Data
In 2025, the international division of the New York-based American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”), published the 2024 ICDR Dispute Resolution Data. 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.
2025 International Arbitration Survey (QMUL with White & Case)
The 2025 International Arbitration Survey by Queen Mary University of London and White & Case 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, 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.
Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements and Awards
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 of 1958 (“New York Convention”), as incorporated into the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).
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.
- In July 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in Molecular Dynamics, Ltd. v Spectrum Dynamics Med. Ltd., declining a petition to vacate arbitral awards issued in a Geneva-seated arbitration governed by New York law.
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’ fees. The agreement provided for disputes to be resolved through arbitration seated in Geneva, under the laws of New York. It also contained a forum selection clause providing that “on matters . . . concerning the Chosen Arbitration,” the courts of New York would have “exclusive jurisdiction.”
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. Molecular Dynamics argued that Spectrum Dynamics had consented to the jurisdiction of the court by agreeing to the New York forum selection clause. The district court denied the petition, and that decision was subsequently appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s 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’s 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.
Two 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.
- In May 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. 3131 Veterans Blvd. LLC. The court enforced arbitration agreements despite a challenge based on conflicting state law.
The dispute arose out of insurance contracts governed by New York law, with New York as the seat of arbitration. The insureds filed suit in Louisiana state court, arguing that Louisiana law prohibited arbitration in insurance contracts, rendering the arbitration agreements void. 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. The court ultimately rejected the insureds’ arguments and enforced the arbitration agreements.
- In July 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in Doyle v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. 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.
The dispute arose out of a client relationship agreement entered into by the plaintiff trustees of a foundation with UBS. The trustees of the foundation sued UBS, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under U.S. federal and New York state law. UBS had initially filed a motion to dismiss without mentioning arbitration. After the motion to dismiss was denied, UBS filed a motion to compel arbitration. The court ultimately held that UBS’s failure to mention arbitration in its motion to dismiss constituted a waiver of its right to arbitrate.
Courts 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.
- In February 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision in Cargill Fin. Servs. Int’l, Inc. v. Barshchovskiy, 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.
The LCIA arbitration was initiated by Cargill against Mr. Barshchovskiy to recover unpaid debts. After the LCIA’s award was rendered in favor of Cargill, the English Commercial Court rejected the defendant’s 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’s arguments that due process would be violated if the New York district court enforced the English judgment without having personal jurisdiction. The 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’s due process rights.
New York: A Prime Venue for Commercial Disputes
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.
Oil and Gas Disputes
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.
- 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 Locação de Equipamentos Limitada and Consorcio MGT v. Tupi B.V., ICC Case No. 24050/GSS/PFF/RLS. The arbitration was initiated by Consorcio MGT (“CMGT”) (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’s 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. Tupi B.V. raised a series of counterclaims, seeking, inter alia,a price reduction and reimbursements. The tribunal partially granted some of CMGT’s claims and Tupi B.V.’s 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. In addition to disputing CMGT’s petition to vacate the award, in November 2025, Tupi B.V. filed a cross petition in New York federal court to confirm the award. Those petitions are still pending as of the date of publication.
- 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, ICC Case No. 27797/PDP, rejecting a USD 1.7B claim brought by Shell against a subsidiary of Venture Global. Shell’s claim was based on the Venture Global subsidiary’s 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. In November 2025, Shell filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award in the Supreme Court of New York.
In total, at least seven different companies have commenced arbitrations against Venture Global relating to the Calcasieu Pass project. One of these was an ICC arbitration, brought by Chinese state-owned entity Unipec, and settled in October 2025. Arbitral awards were also issued in two other cases since the Shell decision. In October 2025, an ICC tribunal issued a partial award in favor of BP on liability, with quantum to be decided in a subsequent phase. As disclosed by Venture Global, BP was reportedly seeking damages in excess of USD 1B. Moreover, 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’s claims and awarding fees to the subsidiary.
Life Sciences Disputes
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, an increase from 19 life sciences cases in 2023. Recent awards issued in 2025 highlight the use of New York law to decide large, complex life sciences disputes.
- In April 2025, an ICC tribunal in a Washington D.C.-seated arbitration issued the Final Award in Novartis Pharma AG v. Genentech, Inc., ICC Case No. 27260/PDP, arising out of a New York-law governed license and collaboration agreement. 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. Novartis claimed that Genentech had coordinated with Genentech’s parent company (Roche) to develop another competing eye medication, (faricimab, marketed as Vabysmo), in breach of its agreement with Novartis.
An award in Novartis’ favor could have resulted in “tens of billions of dollars” in damages to Roche, with sales of Vabysmo surpassing USD 4 billion in early 2025. However, in addition to denying Novartis’ claim, the tribunal ordered Novartis to pay Genentech approximately USD 18M in arbitration and legal fees plus expenses. In June 2025, Genentech filed a petition in the District Court for the District of Columbia to enforce the arbitration award.
- In August 2025, an International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (“CPR”) tribunal in a New York-seated arbitration issued the Final Award in Cipher Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., CPR Case No. G-24-38-AA. The dispute arose from a pharmaceutical distribution and supply agreement governed by New York law. 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. Cipher alleged that Sun improperly used Cipher’s 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 (“Absorica LD”) in Canada, without Cipher’s consent. The tribunal upheld Cipher’s 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.
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.
- In August 2025, an ICC tribunal in a New York-seated arbitration issued an award in Viatris Healthcare (Pty.) Ltd. v. Sedia Biosciences Corporation, ICC Case No. 27707/PDP. The dispute, governed by New York law, arose from Sedia’s 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. Viatris initiated the arbitration, alleging that Sedia had wrongfully terminated the agreement and Sedia’s failure to maintain an underlying license with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) was a breach of contract. Sedia 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’s wrongful termination and failure to maintain the license with the CDC; and Sedia approximately USD 400K for Viatris’s failure to comply with the dispute resolution provision by initiating parallel litigation and failing to pay amounts owed under purchase orders. The award was subsequently confirmed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in December 2025.
Maritime Law Disputes
New York continues to be a popular choice of law and seat for maritime disputes, with 2025 marking the 200th anniversary of the events underlying New York’s first known maritime arbitration award. Many of these arbitrations are conducted under the Maritime Arbitration Rules of the Society of Maritime Arbitrators (“SMA”).
At least 24 final, partial, or interim awards 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; an award of outstanding demurrage fees owed by a charterer of a vessel that never participated in the arbitration; and a decision denying the owners’ of a vessel leave to file an emergency application relating to a suspension of hire payments by the charterers of the vessel.
Recent Updates from New York-based Arbitral Institutions
AAA-ICDR
In March 2025, the AAA-ICDR published its Guidance on Arbitrators’ Use of AI Tools, which provides arbitrators with considerations when using artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools in their work. The guidance “encourages arbitrators” 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, 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‑ICDR Guidance offers practical considerations to guide arbitrators in using AI tools. In November 2025, the AAA-ICDR launched the AI Arbitrator, currently limited to documents-only construction disputes. 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, who finalizes and signs the award.
JAMS
The New York-based JAMS (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, which include the JAMS Rules Governing Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Suhasini (Su) Rao is an International Arbitration Associate at White & Case LLP. 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’s International Law Committee. Su is qualified to practice in New York and Ontario, Canada.
Camille Esnou is an International Arbitration Fellow at White & Case LLP. Camille worked on commercial and civil litigation matters as an intern at Lenz & Staehelin in Geneva and as a mini pupil at barristers’ chambers 12 King’s 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.
Juan Felipe Silva Bustamante is an International Arbitration Fellow at White & Case LLP. He served as Peace and Security Researcher to UN Women in New York, clerked at Colombia’s Constitutional Court to Judge Jorge Ibáñez, and taught as Adjunct Professor at Universidad de los Andes. Juan Felipe is qualified in Colombia and passed the New York State Bar Exam.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
* Any views expressed in this publication are strictly those of the authors and should not be attributed in any way to White & Case LLP.
