In Thai-Lao Lignite Co., Ltd. & Hongsa Lignite Co., Ltd v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2011), Thai-Lao Lignite (TLL) and Laos entered a Project Development Agreement (PDA) that covered coal mining and operating electricity generation plants to supply power to Thailand. The PDA was governed by New York law and contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules. TLL and Laos had previously entered into two mining agreements involving the same project, and the PDA acknowledged the existence and validity of those contracts.

After disputes arose, Laos sent notices of termination for all three agreements, which prompted TLL to initiate arbitration under the PDA. Applying New York state law, the arbitral panel determined that Laos breached the PDA by its improper termination and awarded damages to TLL. After TLL filed a petition to confirm the award in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Laos filed a motion to dismiss. Laos claimed, in part. that the petition should be dismissed because:

Laos argued that TLL chose a US district court for enforcement solely because it was forum shopping and further argued that Thailand was the appropriate forum. The court found that Thailand was a viable alternative forum, but Laos could not meet its burden of showing that TLL's choice of forum should not be respected. The court explained that jurisdiction under the New York Convention is "not the only link between the parties and the United States". The court noted the following links to the US:

The court decided that litigating in Thailand, however, would be inconvenient for the parties. Thus, the US district court was an appropriate forum.

Laos also argued that the arbitral panel had exceeded its jurisdiction by looking to the other mining agreements to determine the award. Laos claimed that the panel resolved disputes that the parties did not agree to arbitrate and so the court should therefore review the panel's decision de novo.

The court rejected this argument and found that Laos' arguments involved contract interpretation and calculation of damages, not issues of jurisdiction and arbitrability, which the parties had agreed to allow the arbitrators to decide. Relying on previous US Supreme Court and Second Circuit case law, the court deferred to the arbitral panel's conclusions on contract interpretation and calculation of damages. This is because courts play a limited role in reviewing arbitral decisions and cannot reconsider the merits of an award, even if parties allege that the award is based on factual errors or contract misinterpretation.

Further, as the parties agreed to arbitrate under the UNCITRAL Rules, which the Second Circuit has held is "clear and unmistakable" evidence of intent to arbitrate arbitrability, the court can only set aside the arbitral award in "narrow circumstances." The court could not independently review the arbitral panel's decision because the validity of the PDA and arbitration clause was not disputed. Thus, the court held that summary confirmation of the award was warranted.

This case demonstrates the deference that courts give to arbitral awards to "avoid undermining the twin goals of arbitration, namely, settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation."