IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 97-20695
_____________________
TRANS CHEMICAL LIMITED; ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
TRANS CHEMICAL LIMITED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY IMPORT AND EXPORT CORPORATION;
ET AL,
Defendants,
CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY IMPORT AND EXPORT CORPORATION
Defendant-Appellant.
*******************************************************
In The Matter Of: MOHAMMED H. HALIPOTO, M.D.; ZAREENA
HALIPOTO,
Debtors,
---------------------------
CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY IMPORT AND EXPORT CORPORATION,
Appellant,
v.
TRANS CHEMICAL LIMITED,
Appellee.
*******************************************************
C N M I E C,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
T C L,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________
December 8, 1998
Before KING, JOLLY, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CMC)
appeals the district court’s confirmation of an arbitral award
rendered against it. We affirm.
On appeal, CMC raises four issues: (1) Is CMC, a Chinese
corporation, an “agent or instrumentality of a foreign state”
under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1603,
such that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to
confirm the arbitral award rendered against CMC, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1330? (2) Was the arbitral award “not considered as
domestic . . . in the State where [its] recognition and
enforcement are sought” such that the district court could
enforce it pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958, 21
U.S.T. 2517 (1970), reprinted in 9 U.S.C. § 201? (3) Did the
2
contract between CMC and TCL involve “commerce” such that the
district court could enforce the arbitration award pursuant to
the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2? (4) Did the district
court err in refusing to vacate the award under the Federal
Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1)?
We agree with the district court’s analysis of these issues
and therefore adopt Parts I-V of its careful and comprehensive
opinion, In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Ltd. & China
National Machinery Import & Export Corp., 978 F. Supp. 266 (S.D.
Tex. 1997).1 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1
We do not, of course, imply that the other portions of
the opinion are in any way erroneous.
3