Skip to Content

Fourth Circuit Finds Arbitration Clauses Are Valid and Enforceable, Confirms Chinese Arbitral Award

The Fourth Circuit confirmed a foreign arbitration award issued in favor of third-party defendant Chongqing Rato Power Co. Ltd., a Chinese equipment manufacturer, against defendant Roger Leon. The parties negotiated and executed several contracts in China, each containing an arbitration clause requiring any disputes be resolved before a Chinese arbitral commission. Rato commenced arbitration when the relationship soured and the panel issued an award in Rato's favor, which it sought to confirm in this action. Leon opposed the effort, claiming the contracts, and their arbitration clauses, were invalid because he was not represented by Chinese counsel when the contracts were signed. The district court disagreed and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that there was no evidence of fraud, coercion, material misunderstanding, obvious unfairness, or any other situation that would invalidate the agreements.

The Fourth Circuit also affirmed the district court order confirming the award. Leon argued that the award was invalid because the Chinese arbitration proceedings were initiated while Rato's motion to compel arbitration was still pending in a North Carolina state court. But the Fourth Circuit ruled that a party need not await a ruling on a motion to compel in order to initiate arbitration, whether pursuant to section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act or otherwise. Leon asserted other defenses under article V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, each of which was rejected. As such, the district court order was affirmed.

Denver Global Products, Inc. v. Leon, No. 18-1853 (4th Cir. Jun. 8, 2020).

Authored By
Related Practices
Reinsurance
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.