Arbitration Process Issues

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected a claimant’s effort to vacate the dismissal of his FINRA claim following his repeated failure to comply with various deadlines.

Zane Piston initiated a FINRA arbitration against his former employer, Transamerica Capital Inc., claiming that Transamerica Capital incorrectly described the reason for his termination.

The arbitration panel issued a scheduling order. Piston’s attorney failed to make various filings in accordance with the scheduling order and timely respond to motions filed by Transamerica Capital.

Transamerica Capital eventually moved to have Piston’s claim dismissed with prejudice due to these failures. The arbitration panel held a hearing at which it required Piston to show good cause as to why his claim should not be dismissed. Piston’s counsel indicated that he had undergone surgery, been traveling in Europe, and that his wife had been hospitalized and that he had therefore been unable to make timely filings. The panel concluded that Piston’s counsel had not shown good cause for his various failings and dismissed Piston’s claim with prejudice as a sanction.

Piston moved to vacate that decision. The district court denied Piston’s motion, and Piston appealed to the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Piston’s motion to vacate the dismissal of his claim. Piston primarily claimed that the arbitration panel exceeded its powers, disregarded the law, committed misconduct, and denied him a fair hearing because it allegedly dismissed his claim without a warning. The court rejected that claim. It concluded that the panel arguably interpreted and applied FINRA Rule 13212(c), which allows FINRA panels to dismiss a claim with prejudice as a sanction for material and intentional failure to comply with an order of the panel if prior warnings or sanctions proved ineffective. Whether the panel properly interpreted Rule 13212(c) was beyond the scope of the court’s review. The Tenth Circuit also rejected Piston’s claim that the panel misapplied the good cause standard, noting that Piston had to do more than show that the panel committed an error.

Piston v. Transamerica Capital, Inc., No. 19-1123 (10th Cir. July 21, 2020).

The case was brought by Philadelphia Eagles offensive tackle David Lane Johnson against the NFL Players Association, the NFL, and the NFL Management Council related to a 10-game suspension for using performance-enhancing substances. The collective bargaining agreement at issue included a policy regarding testing, discipline, and an arbitration appeal process for players found to be in violation. When Johnson appealed his suspension under the policy, the arbitrator issued an award upholding Johnson’s discipline. Johnson then sued the Players Association, the Management Council, and the NFL, seeking vacatur of the arbitration award and asserting claims for breach of the duty of fair representation, breach of the collective bargaining agreement, and violation of his rights under various labor laws. The district court denied Johnson’s petition for vacatur, confirmed the arbitration award, dismissed certain of Johnson’s claims, and ultimately granted summary judgment against Johnson as to all remaining claims.

On appeal, the Second Circuit rejected Johnson’s argument that the Players Association’s “failure to provide him with documents including ‘the complete Policy, his discipline file, and his testing history file’ amounted to a ‘per se‘ breach of its duty of fair representation.” Even assuming the failure of a union to produce documents constituted a breach, which the court indicated was unprecedented, Johnson still could not identify how the failure of the Players Association to provide these documents affected the outcome of his arbitration.

The Second Circuit also ruled that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Players Association on Johnson’s claim that the union failed to provide him with copies of “side agreements” to the Management Council’s policy. The court was not persuaded by Johnson’s arguments, including that Johnson was entitled to damages for the late production of documents by the Players Association. Johnson was unable to dispute (1) the evidence in the record that all relevant documents had been produced; and (2) that there was no showing of any impact on the arbitral outcome or of bad faith.

The Second Circuit also affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate the arbitration award based on Johnson’s argument that he lacked a full and fair hearing. The Second Circuit concluded, “Johnson was given clear notice of the contemplated disciplinary action that was to be taken against him, the appeal was heard by a qualified arbitrator, and he had a full and fair opportunity to present arguments. That was more than sufficient under our precedent to confirm the award.”

Johnson v. National Football League Players Association, No. 19-2734 (2d Cir. July 17, 2020).

Precision Castparts Corp. purchased companies with manufacturing facilities in the United States and Germany for €800 million. After the sale closed, Precision discovered that the seller had “manipulated financial documents of the acquired companies to show that they were ‘high margin’ and ‘high cash flow’ businesses. In fact, the acquired companies were ‘functionally insolvent.'”

Precision instituted an arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, International Centre for Dispute Resolution, alleging claims for fraudulent inducement and breach of warranty. The tribunal found that the seller breached the contractual agreement and fraudulently induced Precision to purchase the acquired companies. The tribunal awarded damages of €643 million for the fraudulent inducement claim, and €100 million for the breach of contract claim, which was subject to a contractual cap of the same amount. The tribunal stated that the breach of contract award was subsumed within the €643 million fraudulent inducement award and was not in addition to that amount.

The Southern District of New York confirmed the award, finding that it was within the scope of the arbitrators’ power and that the arbitrators had not engaged in manifest disregard of the law. The seller argued that the tribunal disregarded two Delaware legal doctrines, the rehash doctrine and the bootstrapping doctrine, which are “intended to prevent taking contract breach and damages allegations and dressing them up as a fraud claim for the same damages where the contract and fraud allegations are materially identical.”

In rejecting the seller’s argument that the claim was subject to the rehashing or bootstrapping doctrines, the tribunal found that, although there was overlap between the two claims, the “fraudulent misconduct went well beyond breaches of the [contract].” “The broader and different nature of the conduct pleaded to support the fraudulent inducement claims, combined with the additional pleading of intent, which is an element of fraud but not contract breach, was enough to defeat [the seller’s] bootstrapping argument.”

With regard to the rehashing doctrine (which focuses on the claimed damages as opposed to the bootstrapping doctrine, which focuses on the claimed basis for liability), the court found that the rehashing doctrine did not apply because the contract breach claim was limited to €100 million by the contractual indemnity cap, but the fraudulent inducement claim was not subject to any cap. The court found that the tribunal’s determinations did not manifestly disregard the law but rather were well supported by the law. In addition, the issues were within the scope of the arbitrators’ powers as both claims arose from the acquisition that was the subject of the contract, and the contract provided for arbitration of any claim or controversy arising out of or related to it.

Precision Castparts Corp. v. Schulz Holding GmbH & Co. KG, No. 1:20-cv-03029 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2020).