when choosing where to enforce the award). 64 . See id. (arguing that an enforcement country’s authority in Article V.2(b) to refuse enforcement if contrary to its public policy "has the effect of relegating the ultimate decision on the efficacy of the Convention to the good faith of the Contracting States”). 65 . 330 U.S. 258, 294-95, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947) (“It does not follow, of course, that simply because a defendant may be punished for criminal contempt for disobedience of an order later set aside on appeal, that the plaintiff in the action may profit by way of a fine imposed in a simultaneous proceeding for civil contempt based upon a violation of the same order.”). 66 . United States Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers, 519 F.2d 1236, 1249 (5th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). See also Klett v. Pim, 965 F.2d 587, 590 (8th
recognizing and applying the rule that disobedience of a void preliminary injunction does not carry civil contempt penalties holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction recognizing the inappropriateness of a preliminary injunction where credibility determinations must be made but granting a preliminary injunction because the legal and factual issues have been sufficiently illuminated holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified holding that the filed rate doctrine barred request for damages but did not preclude request for injunction and civil penalties