In Sonera Holding BV v Cukurova Holding AS, (SDNY, Sept. 10, 2012), Sonera Holding BV (Sonera), a Dutch company, sought to enforce an ICC arbitral award against Cukurova Holding AS (Cukurova), a Turkish company. The parties had entered into a Share Purchase Agreement for the sale of shares of a Turkish mobile telephone service company. When Cukurova failed to deliver the shares, Sonera commenced an ICC arbitration pursuant to the parties' agreement. The ICC tribunal issued a Partial Award, ordering Cukurova to deliver the shares to Sonera. When Cukurova refused to deliver the shares, the tribunal issued a Final Award of damages.

Sonera then petitioned the Southern District of New York for enforcement of the award under the New York Convention, as implemented by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Cukurova resisted enforcement arguing that the:

However, the court was unconvinced by Cukurova's arguments.

Personal jurisdiction over the parties is required to confirm an arbitral award. Under New York's long-arm statute, personal jurisdiction exists over a foreign corporation that conducts "continuous, permanent and substantial activity" in the state. This is a fact-specific inquiry. The court found that Cukurova's registry on the New York Stock Exchange, negotiation of commercial contracts with New York-based private equity funds, and activities of its subsidiaries and affiliates in New York was sufficient continuous and systematic business activity in New York State. Therefore, personal jurisdiction was satisfied under New York's long-arm statute.

For Cukurova's objections on arbitrability and due process, the court held that the parties had agreed to submit questions about the scope of the arbitration clause to the arbitration tribunal, by agreeing to the ICC arbitration rules, and that challenges to the tribunal's evidentiary rulings barring certain oral testimony did not rise to the level of a due process violation because written testimony was sufficient. As such, the court dismissed as misplaced Cukurova's allegations that the award was defective.

The court noted that the doctrine of forum non conveniens has limited application in enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, because the purpose of the New York Convention is to encourage international commerce by promoting easily enforceable awards. Accordingly, the court was unconvinced by Cukurova's arguments that the forum lacked a sufficient connection to the parties and concluded that dismissal for forum non conveniens was not warranted.

This case illustrates the strong federal policy in favour of international arbitration. The case confirms the presumption of limited review of foreign arbitral awards and emphasises the heavy burden for refusal of recognition of a foreign arbitral award.