Case: 20-10491 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10491 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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 …Original document

This content is restricted to site members only. If you are an existing user, please log in to "My Account". New users may register here 

Existing Users Log In
   
New User Registration
*Required field