Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals awarded attorneys’ fees to a petitioner seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award who had been forced to defend against a frivolous appeal based on “hyperformalistic objections” by the respondent, against whom the arbitration tribunal issued its award. After opining on the flimsy merits of the appeal in March, the Ninth Circuit issued an order to show cause. In it, the Court observed, “Winebow knew or should have known that its claims were frivolous, and it should bear the cost of this self-indulgent appeal.” Franz Haas GmbH SRL v. Winebow Inc., No. 25-4105 (9th Cir. Mar. 26, 2026).

The case arose from a petition in the Central District of California to confirm an Italian Arbitration Award under the New York Convention. Pursuant to Article IV of the Convention, on November 25, 2024, Petitioner Haas moved to confirm an award in its favor against Respondent Winebow. Because Petitioner’s initial filing omitted some of the documents necessary to proceed with its motion, Petitioner moved for leave to amend its submission on February 20, 2025. Respondent opposed the motion for leave, arguing all necessary documents must be produced at the time of filing, and that Petitioner’s translations of the award were inaccurate. The District Court rejected these arguments and ultimately confirmed the award.

Respondent then appealed the confirmation to the Ninth Circuit, which issued its opinion on April 9, 2026. In its appeal, Respondent repeated the unsuccessful arguments it made at the District Court level. Echoing the District Court, the Ninth Circuit determined that none of the arguments raised by Respondent seriously objected to the substance of Petitioner’s motion to confirm the award. Rather, Respondent focused on trivialities that did not impress the Court. Notably, Respondent repeated its claim that the translations of the Italian Arbitration Award were inadequate to meet the standard of Article IV. However, Respondent identified only one (1) incorrect word in the translation. Amusingly, Respondent derided the translation for using “foreign language”; in fact, the only non-English phrase used in the translation was “pactum renovandi,” a Latin term of art that the award accurately defined in English.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that Respondent’s appeal was “frivolous,” as it failed to raise a substantive argument on which the District Court’s decision could be overturned. It specifically pointed to Respondent’s focus on insignificant and minute faults in Petitioner’s submissions as evidence that its arguments were non-substantive and therefore frivolous. After the parties had presented their positions in response to the Court’s order to show cause, the Ninth Circuit ordered that Respondent and its firm, jointly and severally, were liable for all attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the appeal of the District Court’s confirmation of the Italian Arbitration Award. The Court noted that Respondent’s frivolous legal arguments were “selected and introduced” by its counsel, which justified the joint and several liability between Respondent and its legal counsel.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Winebow will likely deter frivolous appellate litigation of foreign arbitration awards. Specifically, by imposing costs and fees directly onto Respondent’s counsel, Winebow stands as a potent warning that attorneys may be “on the hook” for losses incurred through meritless appellate litigation arising from foreign arbitration. The decision also strengthens the expectation that district courts will efficiently expedite arbitration confirmations under the New York Convention.

For more information on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Franz Haas GmbH SRL v. Winebow Inc., please contact us at info@chaloslaw.com