In Injazat Tech. Fund, BSC. v Najafi, (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2012), Injazat entered into an investment agreement with Broadlink Research FZ LLC (Broadlink), a United Arab Emirates company, and its CEO Hamid Najafi. The agreement contained an arbitration clause providing that any dispute be governed by English law and be referred to arbitration under the ICC Rules.

A dispute arose and the parties submitted it to arbitration. The arbitrator issued a final award against Najafi and Injazat filed to confirm the award under the New York Convention. Najafi responded with a motion to stay confirmation of the award until completion of a second related ICC arbitration, which Najafi initiated on the same day. Najafi argued that the court should stay the proceedings because "a confirmation of the award would be 'premature' based on the existence of the 'related' arbitration, and confirming the award would risk the possibility of 'inconsistent results.'"

After finding that Najafi showed no reason to not confirm the award, the court discussed the grounds for staying confirmation. The court first stated that the New York Convention does not address staying confirmation pending a second arbitration and there is little case law addressing the issue. Staying confirmation usually requires that the second arbitration involve claims the respondent could not raise in the first proceeding or where the petitioner is insolvent. Stays of confirmation, however, are not routinely granted because the purpose of the New York Convention is to expedite the recognition of foreign arbitral awards with minimum judicial interference.

The court did not grant the request for a stay of confirmation because Najafi failed to provide any evidence that Injazat was insolvent or would be unable to pay a future award. Najafi also failed to explain why his counterclaims were not raised in the initial arbitration or why he did not promptly initiate the second related arbitration. The court emphasised that Najafi participated in the initial arbitration and did not provide sufficient justification for why he could not have raised the claims then. The court concluded that choosing not to present the claims does not justify a delay.

This case demonstrates the limited grounds for staying enforcement of a foreign arbitral award and courts' strict interpretation of those grounds, as well as the need for respondents to raise any available counterclaims as promptly as possible.