First, S&T argued that the arbitration clause was unenforceable under the New York Convention as enacted into law by the US Congress because the arbitration agreement involved two US citizens and therefore had no "reasonable relation" with a foreign state. S&T alleged that Juridica's principal place of business was the US because its investment manager, Juridica Capital Management Limited "implement[ed], direct[ed], and coordinate[d]" Juridica's activities from its office in New York. In response, Juridica asserted that it conducted extensive business activities in the Channel Islands, a foreign state. Juridica also argued that the arbitration provision was enforceable because it involved fees for an arbitral proceeding against Romania about commercial activity in Romania and thus had a "reasonable relation" to a foreign state.

Second, S&T argued that the provision was procured by fraud because one of Juridica's board members was also an LCIA board member and LCIA board members appoint arbitrators to LCIA administered cases. S&T claimed that had it known that a Juridica board member would help appoint arbitrators, it would not have entered into the arbitration agreement. Juridica denied these allegations with an affidavit from the Juridica board member, who stated that he was never on the LCIA board of directors and had no ability to select the arbitrator.

Third, S&T argued that the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable because arbitration in Guernsey would be expensive and deprive S&T of its day in court.