BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION
1. Whether Petitioners forfeited their argument based on Article III of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Convention" or the "Convention") by failing to raise it below, and in the alternative whether the court of appeals correctly held that nothing in the New York Convention or its implementing legislation requires parties resisting recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in a secondary jurisdiction to first seek vacatur in the primary jurisdiction as a precondition to asserting the defenses expressly set forth in the Convention.
2. Whether Petitioners forfeited their separability-doctrine and third-party-beneficiary arguments by failing to raise them below, and in the alternative whether both courts below correctly found as a factual matter that Petitioners had no rights under the arbitration agreement, and alternatively that Respondents were not bound by that agreement.
3. Whether Judge Miller correctly applied settled law in rejecting Petitioners' baseless and factbound assertions of facially inadequate alleged grounds for disqualification.
Further review is not warranted in this case. Petitioners forfeited the first and second questions asserted in their petition by failing to raise them below.
In any event, Petitioners' first question concerning Article III of the New York Convention--like their attempt to manufacture a variety of related circuit conflicts--rests on a clear misreading of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and the cited case law. Petitioners' second question concerning the "separability doctrine" similarly rests on a misreading of the law, and would not warrant review in any event because the judgment below rests on multiple alternative factbound grounds that are independent of Petitioners' forfeited and meritless arguments. Finally, there is no basis for review of the fact-bound question whether Judge Miller correctly applied settled law in rejecting Petitioners' frivolous recusal motion. Indeed, Petitioners do not even attempt to identify any conflict in authority regarding the second and third questions presented that could theoretically merit plenary review. Certiorari should be denied.
Petitioners' entire case is a fraud. Claiming to own substantial portions of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves based on a 1949 deed, Petitioners first attempted to pursue their baseless claims in Saudi Arabia. That attempt failed because Saudi Aramco (the national oil company of Saudi Arabia), and not Petitioners, holds title to the lands in question. C.A.ECF-28 at SER215.
Not to be deterred, Petitioners then instituted a sham arbitration proceeding against Chevron Corporation (but not Chevron U.S.A. Inc.) in Egypt before a corrupt arbitral tribunal, several of whose personnel were subsequently convicted of criminal misconduct for their roles in this sham. See C.A.ECF-29-2, 45-2; Dist.Ct.ECF-141, 158. The arbitral panel committed multiple egregious procedural irregularities in blatant violation of the arbitration agreement that Petitioners claimed to invoke. Ultimately, the arbitral panel entered a decision dismissing Petitioners' claims, but then purported to reconstitute itself with improperly changed membership and awarded $18 billion to Petitioners (and tens of millions of dollars for the arbitral tribunal itself, CA-ECF-28 at SER182-83). Pet. App. 4a. The lower federal courts correctly and unanimously rejected Petitioners' attempts to enforce this sham "award" on multiple grounds. Further review is not warranted.
The petition's recitation of the alleged factual and procedural history is inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete, and contains numerous false, irrelevant, and unsubstantiated allegations, as confirmed by the absence of citations to the findings below. Respondents will not attempt to refute all of Petitioners' falsehoods, but set forth below an accurate recitation of the relevant legal background and facts as shown by the record and findings.