• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Confirms Arbitration Award

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Confirms Arbitration Award

December 5, 2019 by Carlton Fields

Plaintiff David Balch entered into a contract with Oracle Corp. to close a large government contract known as the “Mega Deal.” After closing the Mega Deal, Balch received a bonus that was less than he believed he was owed. Pursuant to the contract, Balch initiated an arbitration proceeding against Oracle to resolve the dispute. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of Oracle.

Balch filed a petition to vacate the award in a Maryland state court. Oracle removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and filed a motion to confirm the award. The district court explained that an award can only be vacated on four narrow grounds set out in 9 U.S.C. § 10. Section 10 allows for vacating an award (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) where there was evident partiality or misconduct on the part of the arbitrator; or (3) where the arbitrator exceeded his or her powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. In addition, a court may overturn a legal interpretation of an arbitrator if it is “in manifest disregard of the law.”

The court ruled in favor of Oracle and confirmed the award. The court reasoned that the arbitrator did not fail to follow the essence of the contract. The court further explained that the arbitrator “had full discretion to determine the case on summary judgment … and the arbitrator otherwise afforded Mr. Balch a full and fair hearing through extensive briefing and discovery.” Lastly, the court held that the arbitrator did not act in manifest disregard of the law because the arbitrator identified the controlling principles of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, reasonably determined that an ambiguity existed in the application of the law to apposite cases, and heeded the legal principles laid out in the cases he perceived to be correct and on point.

Balch v. Oracle Corp., No. 1:19-cv-01353 (D. Md. Nov. 15, 2019).

Filed Under: Arbitration / Court Decisions

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.