Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Brendan Gooley

Brendan Gooley

Fourth Circuit Holds That District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Confirm Arbitration Award

by

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a district court lacked jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award because the court did not have an independent basis for jurisdiction on the face of the application and could not “look through” to see if it had such jurisdiction.

An arbitration panel issued an award in favor of SmartSky Networks LLC. SmartSky moved to enforce that award. The district court confirmed the award and the parties who lost the arbitration appealed to the Fourth Circuit. They claimed that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the award under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Badgerow v. Walters, which held that to enforce or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 or 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a court “must have a basis for subject matter jurisdiction independent from the FAA and apparent on the face of the application” (i.e., the court cannot “look through” to see if it has jurisdiction in applications under Sections 9 or 10).

The Fourth Circuit agreed that the district court lacked jurisdiction:

At the time the parties filed their respective Section 9 and 10 applications, they were no longer litigating over their fraught business relationship — those issues and claims had been resolved by the Tribunal. Instead, the parties’ dispute focused on the enforceability of the arbitral award. To find it had jurisdiction over what was in essence a contract dispute among the parties, the district court had to “look through” to the civil lawsuit and determine that a federal claim existed.

The Fourth Circuit explained that the district court could not do that under Badgerow.

The Fourth Circuit also rejected SmartSky’s argument that the district court had jurisdiction because it had stayed the action pending arbitration and therefore retained jurisdiction. The court explained: “Section 8 [of the FAA] is the only section that expressly provides that a district court may ‘retain’ jurisdiction to enforce, vacate, or modify an award. Sections 9 and 10 do not contain such language and … do not provide any escape from Badgerow’s holding that there must be an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction for applications.”

SmartSky Networks, LLC v. DAG Wireless, Ltd., No. 22-1253 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2024).

D.C. Circuit Affirms Decision Vacating and Remanding Arbitration Decision

by

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a district court’s decision to vacate and remand an arbitration decision in a case concerning companies’ withdrawal from a retirement fund.

For many years, various companies made contributions on behalf of their employees to the IAM National Pension Fund. Several of those companies decided to withdraw from the fund, however. Pursuant to the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), the employers had to pay fees associated with their withdrawal. The fees were calculated by an actuary. Under the MPPAA, employers who seek to challenge the fees assessed must do so through arbitration. In this case, several employers initiated arbitration to dispute the fees.

The arbitrator concluded that the fund “erred in its calculations” by using certain assumptions and issued an array of other rulings. The fund sought to confirm in part and vacate in part the arbitrator’s award. The district court vacated the arbitration award and remanded the case to the arbitrator after ruling, in relevant part, that the actuaries had broader discretion to make assumptions that the arbitrator had concluded. The fund and several companies appealed.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court “correctly found that the arbitrator erred in concluding that an actuary must use” certain assumptions and methods as of a particular date “when calculating withdrawal liability” under the MPPAA.

Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund v. M&K Employee Solutions, LLC, No. 22-7157 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 9, 2024).

Ninth Circuit Upholds Decision Compelling Arbitration Based on Terms of Use in Hyperlinks

by

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a decision compelling arbitration based on an arbitration provision in website “terms of use,” even though those terms were in a hyperlink.

In Patrick v. Running Warehouse LLC, a group of consumers brought six putative class actions against online sporting goods retailers after their personal information was exposed in a data breach. When purchasing goods from the defendants’ websites, they had to click a button that said “place order” or “submit order.” Next to that button was a statement that read: “By submitting your order you … agree to our privacy policy and terms of use.” The phrase “terms of use” was a hyperlink that led to the defendants’ terms of use, which contained an arbitration provision.

The defendants move to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the terms of use. The district court granted that motion and the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed.

The plaintiffs primarily argued that the websites provided insufficient notice of the arbitration provisions. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument. It noted that inquiry notice was sufficient as long as “the website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound; and (2) the consumer takes some action, such as clicking a button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her assent to those terms.” The court noted that hyperlinks can satisfy that standard as long as they are “displayed in a font size and format such that the court can fairly assume that a reasonably prudent Internet user would have seen it.” The defendants’ hyperlinks satisfied that standard because, for example, the notice was prominently displayed on an uncluttered page, clear and legible, and the “terms of use” hyperlink, colored bright green, was easily distinguishable and clearly clickable, resembling other links on the page.

The Ninth Circuit distinguished those facts from a case in which it recently held that there was insufficient inquiry notice because the “terms and conditions” in that case were printed in a tiny gray font much smaller than surrounding website elements, it was “barely legible to the naked eye.”

The Ninth Circuit also rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration provisions were invalid under California law and that they were unconscionable. The court further held that the parties delegated the question of arbitrability by invoking JAMS’ rules, which provide that arbitrability disputes are for the arbitrator, not the court.

Second Circuit Holds That Refusal to Enjoin Arbitration Is Immediately Appealable, Clarifies Standard for Obtaining Preliminary Injunction Enjoining Arbitration

by

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a district court’s refusal to enjoin arbitration was immediately appealable because the arbitration agreement was governed by state law rather than the Federal Arbitration Act. The Second Circuit went on to clarify the standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction enjoining arbitration and remanded the case for a determination of whether that standard was met.

The Resource Group International Ltd. (TRGI) and related entities and TRGI’s chairman and director, Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti, entered into a preferred stock purchase agreement with several other entities. The agreement contained an arbitration clause that provided for arbitration in accordance with “the Uniform Arbitration Act as in effect in the State of New York.” Chishti subsequently resigned from TRGI and executed a release agreement with the entities who had signed the stock purchase agreement. The release agreement contained (1) a forum-selection clause designating the state and federal courts in New York as the “exclusive jurisdiction” for any litigation between the parties and (2) a merger clause stating that the release agreement constituted the “entire agreement” between the parties and that it “supersede[d] all prior arrangements or understandings.” The release agreement required Chishti to refrain from commencing litigation or other proceedings against TRGI and others.

Chishti subsequently initiated arbitration against TRGI claiming that TRGI had breached the stock purchase agreement. TRGI then filed suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that Chishti had breached the release agreement. TRGI sought a declaratory judgment that the release agreement superseded the stock purchase agreement’s arbitration provisions and a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction staying the arbitration proceedings. The district court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that TRGI had not shown irreparable harm or a likelihood of success. TRGI appealed.

The Second Circuit first concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider TRGI’s interlocutory appeal. Although Section 16 of the FAA precludes appeals from interlocutory orders refusing to enjoin arbitration subject to the FAA, the Second Circuit explained that the parties to the stock purchase agreement “opted out of the FAA and expressly elected New York state law to govern any arbitration.” New York law allowed for interlocutory appeals from orders refusing to enjoin arbitration.

Turning to the merits, the Second Circuit held that the release agreement did in fact supersede the stock purchase agreement and that TRGI was likely to succeed on its claim on that point. The release agreement also made clear, however, that at least some claims could be arbitrable. The Second Circuit therefore remanded the case to determine whether the instant claims were arbitrable under the release agreement. The Second Circuit also explained that “forced arbitration of inarbitrable claims may constitute irreparable harm when the arbitration is one for which any award would not be enforceable and for which the time and resources expended in arbitration is not compensable by any monetary award of attorneys’ fees or damages.” The Second Circuit instructed the district court to consider that standard on remand.

Resource Group International Ltd. v. Chishti, No. 23-286 (2d Cir. Jan. 22, 2024).

Court Refuses to Compel Arbitration Based on Dissolution of Arbitral Forum

by

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recently refused to compel arbitration on the ground that the arbitral forum had ceased to exist and that a purported replacement forum was not the same forum and that a party could thus not be compelled to arbitrate there under the terms of an arbitration agreement requiring arbitration in the now defunct forum.

Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Co. Ltd. contracted with Dynamic Industries Inc., Dynamic Industries International LLC, and Dynamic Industries International Holdings Inc. for materials and services related to an oil and gas project in Saudi Arabia. The agreement included an arbitration clause requiring arbitration with the Dubai International Financial Centre-London Court of International Arbitration (DIFC-LCIA).

Baker Hughes claimed that Dynamic breached the contract and filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Dynamic moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause. Baker Hughes opposed the motion on the grounds that the government of Dubai had issued a decree abolishing the DIFC-LCIA and replacing it with the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). Dynamic responded that the government of Dubai had transferred the assets, rights, and obligations of the DIFC-LCIA to the DIAC and had deemed all arbitration agreements subject to the DIFC-LCIA valid.

The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration. It noted that arbitration is based on consent and that binding Fifth Circuit precedent precluded compelling arbitration where “the agreed upon arbitration tribunal is unavailable or no longer exists.” The court rejected Dynamic’s arguments about the government of Dubai’s transfer and provision, noting that the DIAC was “not the same forum in which the parties agreed to arbitrate” and that the government of Dubai did not have the authority to compel Baker Hughes to arbitrate in a different forum.

Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Co. v. Dynamic Industries, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-01396 (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2023).