Numerous federal circuit and district courts have held that, for foreign arbitral awards to be enforced in the United States there must be, in addition to subject-matter jurisdiction under Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, personal jurisdiction over the award debtor or quasi in rem jurisdiction to the extent of the debtor’s property in the jurisdiction. See Frontera Res. Azer. v. State Oil Co. of the Azer. Republic, 582 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2009). A Circuit Court has recently addressed whether, in considering relevant contacts with the forum in a specific personal jurisdiction analysis, courts should analyze the contacts relating to the arbitration or those concerning the transaction underlying the arbitration out of which the award arose. This is the issue we discuss in today’s column.

Since International Shoe Co. v. Washington, the touchstone due process principle has been that, before a court may exercise jurisdiction over a person or an entity, that person or entity must have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This principle presaged the development of two categories of personal jurisdiction: general and specific. General, all-purpose jurisdiction permits a court to hear any and all claims against a defendant. Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, accords adjudicatory authority only over issues that arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.