Brendan Gooley

Supreme Court of Arkansas Declines To Consider Part of Appeal Involving Court’s Failure To Consider Motion To Compel Arbitration

December 20, 2022 by Brendan Gooley

The Supreme Court of Arkansas recently refused to consider the portion of an appeal involving a motion to compel arbitration because the lower court had not ruled on the motion and the court therefore concluded it did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

Altice USA, Inc., d/b/a Suddenlink Communications provided phone, internet, and cable services to the City of Gurdon, Arkansas. In conjunction with its provision of services, Suddenlink assessed certain fees. The City of Gurdon filed a putative class action claiming that three of the fees assessed were improper. Suddenlink filed a motion to compel individual, non-class arbitration in response. The trial court granted class certification without ruling on Suddenlink’s motion even though Arkansas Code provided that a court “shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim alleged to be subject to arbitration until the court renders a final decision” on the request for arbitration. Suddenlink then appealed the court’s failure to rule on its motion and the grant of class certification.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the portion of Suddenlink’s appeal that challenged the failure to rule on its motion to compel arbitration. The court noted, “only certain issues concerning arbitration are eligible for interlocutory appeal, namely orders denying motions to compel arbitration.” Because the trial court had “not entered an order denying Suddenlink’s motion to compel arbitration,” the court concluded, “the absence of an order foreclosed Suddenlink’s ability to appeal” the lack of a ruling on the motion to compel. The court also noted, “Suddenlink failed to seek an extraordinary writ to force the trial court to comply with” the provision of the Arkansas Code that seemingly required the trial court to stay proceedings pending a ruling.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas then affirmed the grant of class certification.

Altice USA, Inc. d/b/a Suddenlink Communications v. City of Gurden et al., No. CV-22-32 (Nov. 10, 2022).

Second Circuit Holds That Summons Is Not Required When Seeking Confirmation of Foreign Arbitral Award Against Foreign Instrumentalities

November 4, 2022 by Brendan Gooley

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a summons is not required to initiate proceedings to compel a foreign arbitration award against a foreign instrumentality. The court also confirmed the arbitration award at issue but vacated the district court’s award of additional fees because the losing party’s arguments did not amount to bad faith or vexatious arguments.

CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A. is a Venezuelan company that produces and exports iron ore. Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. (CME) is a British Virgin Islands company that trades commodities and minerals, including iron ore. CME and Ferrominera executed a contract for a ship named the General Piar to transport Ferrominera-owned iron ore to an offshore transfer station where CME would then ship it onward. The contract specified U.S. law as the choice of law and contained a broad arbitration clause.

CME commenced arbitration for unpaid invoices, lost profits, and attorneys’ fees. The arbitration panel rejected jurisdictional, fraud/corruption, and other defenses from Ferrominera and entered an award in favor of CME. CME moved to confirm that award. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed the award and awarded costs and fees.

The Second Circuit affirmed, except with respect to the district court’s fee award.

First, the Second Circuit rejected Ferrominera’s argument that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction because CME had not served a summons when it initiated its action to confirm. The Second Circuit held that “a summons is not required to properly effect service when seeking confirmation of a foreign arbitral award against a foreign instrumentality” because the Federal Arbitration Act does not require a summons and the FAA’s references to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which Ferrominera relied on, were only to fill gaps in the FAA regarding the manner of serving documents.

Second, the Second Circuit disagreed with Ferrominera’s arguments that the agreement was invalid under Venezuelan law because the proper Venezuelan officials had not signed off on it, that, even if valid, the arbitrators had exceeded their authority by refusing to allow Ferrominera to allocate payments between various agreements with CME as it wished, and that the award violated U.S. public policy. The agreement contained a U.S. choice-of-law provision, which rendered Ferrominera’s reliance on Venezuelan law regarding who must approve agreements meritless. The allocation argument was merely a damages argument, and damages were for the arbitrators to determine. Ferrominera’s public policy argument meanwhile relied on a claim that the agreement was obtained through “corruption,” but that did not challenge the award, and the FAA’s narrow public policy exception concerned whether the award offended public policy.

Third, the Second Circuit agreed with Ferrominera that the district court erred by awarding further fees. Although the district court had inherent authority to award fees for bad faith, vexatious, etc., arguments, Ferrominera’s arguments did not meet that standard. The summons issue, for example, was an issue of first impression for the Second Circuit that Ferrominera had prevailed on in other courts. The Second Circuit vacated the additional fees.

Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A., No. 20-4248 (2d Cir. Oct. 3, 2022).

Court Confirms Almost $23M Arbitration Award

November 2, 2022 by Brendan Gooley

A court recently confirmed an arbitration award totaling nearly $23 million after rejecting the losing party’s arguments that the arbitrator exceeded his authority, improperly calculated damages, and violated an American Arbitration Association rule.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) operated a number of pharmacies that supported AIDS patients. AHF contracted with Caremark LLC and Caremark PCS LLC for certain pharmacy benefit management services. Pursuant to the agreement, Caremark took Medicare Part D monies earmarked to pay for prescriptions for people of limited financial means to pay that money to Medicare Part D plan sponsors. AHF claimed that the manner in which Caremark did that violated the agreement between AHF and Caremark. An arbitrator agreed and awarded AHF $22.6 million in damages plus approximately $366,000 in costs and fees.

Caremark moved to vacate the award. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona rejected Caremark’s claims and added additional costs, fees, and interest to the award.

Caremark first claimed that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by adjudicating the claims of 51 separate pharmacies collectively. According to Caremark, that violated the arbitration agreement’s provision that “[a]ll disputes are subject to arbitration on an individual basis, not on a class or representative basis, or through any form of consolidated proceedings.” The court concluded that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the anti-class action provision as not being violated by consolidating claims from separate AHF pharmacies was not “completely irrational” or in “manifest disregard of the law” and further noted that the agreement permitted consolidation of claims from any contracts and agreements from participation in Caremark’s networks.

The court similarly rejected Caremark’s argument that the arbitrator’s damages computation was irrational. It agreed with the arbitrator that Caremark first raised that claim in a motion to recalculate the damages and that the argument should have been raised earlier.

Finally, the court found that the arbitrator acted properly in increasing the damages after the deadline set by Rule 50 of the AAA rules had passed. The arbitrator concluded that Rule 50 did not apply because the award he amended was an interim award. The court found that the arbitrator’s interpretation of Rule 50 was plausible and therefore acceptable.

The court also awarded costs, fees, and interest related to Caremark’s motion to vacate.

Caremark LLC v. AIDS Healthcare Foundation, No. 2:21-cv-01913 (D. Ariz. Sept. 15, 2022).

Sixth Circuit Holds That District Court Erred by Not Analyzing Whether Non-Signatory Consented to Arbitration

September 22, 2022 by Brendan Gooley

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated and remanded an order concluding that a party was not bound by an arbitration award after concluding that the district court failed to consider whether that party may have consented to arbitration through its actions even though it was not a signatory to the collective bargaining agreement that contained the arbitration clause.

Greenhouse Holdings LLC did business as Clearview Glass and Glazing in Kentucky. Greenhouse also owned 90% of Clearview Glass and Glazing Contractors of Tennessee LLC. The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 91 filed a grievance against “Clearview Glass” alleging that it violated a collective bargaining agreement the union had. It was unclear whether “Clearview Glass” meant Greenhouse (based on its trade name Clearview Kentucky), Clearview Tennessee, or both. The union argued that Greenhouse was bound by the collective bargaining agreement and an arbitration clause therein. Greenhouse disputed that. The arbitrator apparently sided with the union and issued an order that affected Clearview Kentucky (i.e., Greenhouse). Greenhouse challenged that award.

The district court vacated the arbitrator’s award “to the extent it applies to Greenhouse.” The district court “held that Greenhouse wasn’t a party to the [collective bargaining agreement] and thus the arbitrator acted outside his authority to the extent the award applied to Greenhouse.”

The Third Circuit vacated the district court’s decision. It held that the district court “didn’t address this threshold question” of whether Greenhouse had consented to arbitration even though it did not sign the collective bargaining agreement that contained the arbitration clause. The Third Circuit explained that “an agreement to arbitrate need not be in writing” and that courts “may infer agreement when a party willingly participates in [an] arbitration without objecting to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.”

The Third Circuit further explained that whether a party has consented to arbitration it otherwise may not have agreed to is a fact-intensive inquiry, and it remanded the case to the district court to analyze that question under the facts of the case.

Greenhouse Holdings, LLC v. International Union of Painters & Allied Trades District Council 91, No. 21-6164 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2022).

Third Circuit Compels Arbitration Despite Dispute About Whether Assignment of Loan Containing Arbitration Clause Was Lawful

September 20, 2022 by Brendan Gooley

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a district court should have granted a motion to compel arbitration even though there was a dispute about the legality of an assignment of a loan agreement that contained the arbitration clause at issue. The Third Circuit explained that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, which was sufficient to send the case to arbitration.

OneMain Financial Group, a nonbank finance company that issues consumer loans, issued a loan to Benjamin Zirpoli pursuant to the Consumer Discount Company Act (CDCA), which creates exceptions to state usury laws. That loan contained an arbitration clause that provided that “You or We have an absolute right to demand that any Claim be submitted to an arbitrator in accordance with this Arbitration Agreement.” “We” was defined to include OneMain’s “assignees.” “Claim” was meanwhile defined to include “anything related to … the arbitrability of any Claim pursuant to this Agreement” and “anything related to … any alleged violation [of a state statute], including without limitation … usury … laws.”

OneMain sold Zirpoli’s account, which was then delinquent, to Midland Funding LLC, a company that purchases consumer debt. The “CDCA prohibits CDCA licensees from ‘selling contracts to a … corporation not holding a license … without the prior written approval of the Secretary of Banking,’” but Midland apparently “did not possess a CDCA license or request approval from the Department of Banking” to acquire Zirpoli’s account.

Midland sued Zirpoli to collect the debt but later dismissed the suit and then allegedly reported Zirpoli’s delinquent debt to various consumer agencies, which purportedly negatively affected Zirpoli’s credit. Zirpoli then filed a putative class action alleging that because Midland did not have a CDCA license and did not obtain approval from the Department of Banking, it was not lawfully permitted to purchase his loan or the other CDCA-governed loans it acquired.

Midland moved to compel arbitration. The district court ultimately denied Midland’s motion based on the purported illegality of the transfer from OneMain to Midland.

The Third Circuit (with one judge dissenting) vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to grant Midland’s motion to compel arbitration.

After holding that “party” under section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act “refers to a party to a litigation” and that it therefore had jurisdiction to consider Midland’s motion on appeal, the Third Circuit held that arbitration was appropriate because Zirpoli had signed a valid arbitration agreement and that agreement applied to OneMain’s assigns, which included Midland. The Third Circuit acknowledged that there was a dispute about the legality of OneMain’s assignment to Midland but explained that its analysis was limited to the threshold question of whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate in light of the delegation clause delegating issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that it was therefore prohibited from analyzing the merits of the dispute regarding whether that agreement should be invalidated because it violated the CDCA.

The Third Circuit alternatively held that even if it considered the merits of Zirpoli’s claim, it would reject his contention that the assignment was invalid. OneMain had “charged-off” Zirpoli’s loan, which meant that the “assignment falls outside of the CDCA’s purview.”

Zirpoli v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 21-2438 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2022).