IPI must be allowed arbitration in disputes on the applicability of its force majeure defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Northern Mariana Islands.- Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona <\/strong>has granted Imperial Pacific International LLC’s motion to seek arbitration in its dispute with the Commonwealth Casino Commission (CCC) over its force majeure defence for non-payment of casino licence fees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n IPI had sought an order requiring the CCC to participate in non-binding arbitration with the American Arbitration Association under Section 30 of its Casino Licence Agreement (CLA). <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Mariana’s Variety, Manglona said: “IPI must be allowed to arbitrate all disputes <\/strong>on the applicability of its force majeure defence to the allegations contained in the 2021 complaints, lest Section 25 of the CLA is deprived of any meaning.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n She also granted IPI’s request for an injunction barring the CCC from conducting a withdrawal hearing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Manglona said: “There were two pivotal issues in the case at bar: 1) whether IPI has delayed and therefore waived the opportunity to seek arbitration under the CLA; and 2) whether a dispute on the applicability of a force majeure defence in the instant case is subject to Section 30\u2019s dispute (i.e., arbitration) resolution process despite Section 30\u2019s carve-out for revocation proceedings.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court found that while IPI waived its right to arbitrate the allegations in a 2020 complaint, it had not waived its right to arbitrate the allegations in a 2021 complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Manglona stressed: “Although Section 30 specifically precludes arbitration for issues relating to revocation proceedings (such as the failure to pay annual dues), a force majeure defence that has not been waived must be allowed to go to arbitration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n “Otherwise, Section 25\u2019s force majeure provision would be effectively nullified and deprived of any meaning.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n