Case: 20-10491 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10491
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cv-62033-MGC
IMAX CORPORATION,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GIENCOURT INVESTMENTS, S.A.,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 28, 2020)
Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 20-10491 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 2 of 5
The primary question presented to us in this appeal is whether the district
court properly denied IMAX Corporation’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Awards.
After reviewing the record and reading the parties briefs, we conclude that it did.
I.
The district court assigned the Petition to Vacate Arbitration Awards to a
magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636, et seq. We recite the background facts
from the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”).
IMAX is an entertainment technology company that sells and leases
proprietary entertainment systems. Giencourt Investments, S. A., agreed to act as a
third-party sales force for IMAX, to sell IMAX systems to local exhibitors in
South and Central America and the Caribbean. Between 2005 and 2013, IMAX
and Giencourt entered into a series of agreements to sell IMAX theatres in those
territories. Generally, those agreements provide that Giencourt will purchase a
certain number of IMAX systems to sell on an agreed schedule.
The operative agreement between IMAX and Giencourt is the Amended and
Restated Master Development Agreement for the Purchase and Sale and
Maintenance of IMAX Digital Projection Systems and Trademark License dated
February 20, 2013 (the “Agreement”). Pursuant to the Agreement, Giencourt has
the exclusive right to sell in certain territories, while IMAX and Giencourt share
2
Case: 20-10491 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 3 of 5
sales authority in other territories. The Agreement contains an arbitration clause
(the “Arbitration Clause”), which provides that “[a]ny dispute under this
Agreement not settled by negotiations between the parties shall be submitted to
final and binding arbitration pursuant to the rules of the Arbitration Association of
America (“AAA”).
The Agreement also provides that each time a system is sold, IMAX and
Giencourt will enter into two independent agreements for the sale, lease, and
maintenance of the theater (“Theater Agreements”). The Theater Agreements
accord exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes to the Superior Court of Ontario,
Canada. Several Theater Agreements were in dispute at the time of the arbitration
proceedings. At the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, the arbitral Tribunal
issued a partial final award and then several months later the Tribunal issued its
final award that resolved requests for relief on which it had deferred ruling.
The Tribunal ordered IMAX to pay Giencourt $971,525.38 in arbitration
costs. These costs represent $800,000 in reasonable attorneys’ fees, and 70% of
the administrative fees and expenses of the International Dispute Resolution
Procedures of the AAA (“the ICDR Rules”), as well as 70% of the compensation
and expenses of the arbitrators, which totals $171,525.38.
3
Case: 20-10491 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 4 of 5
After hearing oral argument from the parties, the magistrate judge
recommended to the district court that it deny IMAX’s Petition to Vacate
Arbitration Awards. After making a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s
factual findings and legal conclusions, the district court adopted the R & R and
denied IMAX’s motion. This appeal followed.
II.
This court’s review of an arbitration award must be “highly deferential and
extremely limited.” United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied
Indus. and Serv. Workers Int’l Union AFL-CIO-CLC v. Wise Alloys, LLC, 807 F.3d
1258, 1271 (11th Cir. 2015). As for a district court’s denial of a motion to vacate
an award, we review its findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de
novo. Frazier v. Citifinancial Corp., LLC, 604 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2010).
III.
The record indicates that the district court properly denied vacatur as to both
awards because IMAX failed to carry its burden to establish any defense under the
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, (the
“New York Convention”) or that the arbitral Tribunal exceeded its powers under
the Federal Arbitration Act. Because the record in this case supports the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s R & R denying the Petition to Vacate
4
Case: 20-10491 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 5 of 5
Arbitration Awards, we affirm the district court’s order filed on January 10, 2020,
based on the thorough and well-reasoned R & R of the magistrate judge filed on
September 27, 2019.
AFFIRMED.
5