A favorable arbitral award is a major milestone in any cross-border dispute. But as Dan Tan, founder of Dan Tan Law, explained during the 2026 ICDR Conference panel, “The Enforcement Question: Securing Value in Cross-Border Arbitration,” winning the award is not the same as collecting on it.
In the United States, enforcement can present procedural hurdles before a court ever reaches the merits of whether an award should be recognized and enforced. Award creditors first have to deal with threshold issues — choosing the right court, establishing venue, satisfying jurisdictional requirements, identifying assets, and using the proper procedure — all while anticipating defenses that may delay or complicate recovery. In other words, the fight may begin before the court gets to the core enforcement question.
As Tan described it, a party cannot simply arrive in a U.S. court and say it has an award and expect it to be enforced. For international parties accustomed to more centralized enforcement systems, that can be surprising.
Below are several practical considerations Tan identified for parties seeking to secure value from and enforce a cross-border award in the U.S.
1. Do You Know Where to Go?
The first issue is structural: the U.S. does not have a single national court for the enforcement of arbitral awards. Unlike jurisdictions where an award creditor may have one obvious forum, enforcement in the U.S. begins with geography.
That means the creditor must determine where the respondent is located, where assets may be found, and which federal district court can properly hear the matter. It is not enough to say that a respondent or its assets are “in the U.S.” The question is where, specifically, the enforcement action can be brought.
2. Can You Establish Venue?
Venue is one of the first threshold issues a court may examine. In U.S. federal court, an enforcement proceeding must be filed in the proper district. In the award-enforcement context, that may depend on where the award was made or where the respondent resides or may be found.
For international awards, those criteria may not line up neatly. If the award was issued outside the U.S. and the respondent is a foreign entity with limited U.S. contacts, the award creditor may face a venue problem before the court considers the award itself. That’s why enforcement planning should account for where assets may be located and where a court can properly take up the case.
3. Can You Satisfy Personal Jurisdiction?
Even when assets are located in the U.S., Tan emphasized that courts may still require a showing of personal jurisdiction over the award debtor. That requirement can be difficult to satisfy in cross-border disputes.
Personal jurisdiction usually comes in two forms, general and specific. General jurisdiction is typically limited to places where an entity is incorporated or has its principal place of business. Specific jurisdiction requires a connection between the underlying dispute and the forum. If the dispute arose entirely outside the U.S., neither path may be available. So, an award creditor may have assets in sight but still face a threshold jurisdictional challenge before reaching the merits of enforcement.
4. Can You Identify Assets for Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction?
Where personal jurisdiction is unavailable, parties may look to quasi in rem jurisdiction, which focuses on property located in the forum rather than jurisdiction over the respondent personally. That doctrine can provide a path forward, but it depends on the creditor’s ability to identify specific assets in the district.
That is the practical catch. If the creditor cannot point to property, the argument becomes harder. And even when assets are located, recovery may be limited to the value of those assets. The point is that enforcement strategy depends not only on the award, but also on asset location, timing, and the tools available in the enforcing jurisdiction.
Procedure May Also Matter
Tan also highlighted a procedural trap that can be easy to overlook. A party seeking confirmation under the Federal Arbitration Act should proceed by petition rather than by filing a standard complaint. The process is intended to be abbreviated and decided largely on the papers.
That matters for both sides. A respondent that files a motion to dismiss may find that the motion is treated as its answer. If key defenses are not raised at the proper time, they may be lost. Tan described this as a “one-shot” problem: parties need to understand the procedural rules at the outset because an early misstep can shape, or even end, the enforcement fight.
U.S. Practice May Go Beyond Article V
Under the New York Convention, Article V sets out limited grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. In many jurisdictions, that framework defines the enforcement analysis.
Tan noted that U.S. practice can be more complicated. In addition to Article V defenses, parties may encounter arguments such as manifest disregard or forum non conveniens. These are not Convention defenses, but they may still appear in U.S. enforcement litigation. For parties seeking to secure value from an award, that means the analysis cannot stop with the Convention alone.
The Takeaway: Plan for Enforcement Before You Need It
Throughout his session, Tan’s main point was that enforcement is not merely a post-award exercise. A valid award remains essential, but value is secured only when the award can be converted into recovery. In the U.S., that may require advance planning around venue, jurisdiction, asset location, procedure, and possible defenses before the award is even issued.
For parties and counsel, Tan’s message was clear: do not wait until the enforcement stage to think about enforcement. In cross-border arbitration, the path to recovery begins with the first strategic decisions in the case.