Arbitration Process Issues

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL CANNOT COMPEL ARBITRATION AGAINST NON-SIGNATORIES WHERE CLAIMS WERE BASED ON STATUTE AND NOT CONTRACT

March 12, 2013 by Carlton Fields

In a putative class anti-trust action brought by retail grocers against wholesale grocers, a divided panel of the Eighth Circuit recently reversed the lower court’s decision to compel arbitration under an equitable estoppel theory. The retailers had purposefully brought suit against wholesalers with whom they did not have supply and arbitration agreements. The lower court found that equitable estoppel could be applied to compel arbitration because the retailers’ claims against non-signatory wholesalers were so intertwined with the agreement containing the arbitration clause that it would be unfair to allow the retailers to rely on the agreement in formulating its claims but to disavow availability of the arbitration clause of that same agreement. The lower court reasoned that without the arbitration “agreements no wholesaler-supplier relationship would exist to be exploited by the alleged anti-trust conspiracy.” On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed this ruling, holding that the retailers’ claims were based on statutory rights that exist independent of the supply and arbitration agreements, and that since none of the contracts specified price terms, the retailers’ claims did not involve alleged violation of any contractual terms. The lower court’s analysis, the Eighth Circuit concluded, “focuse[d] too much on the relationship between the signatories, rather than on the relationship between the signatory’s claims against the non-signatory and the contract containing the arbitration clause.” In re Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-3768 (8th Cir. Feb. 13, 2013).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMS JUDGMENT CONFIRMING ARBITRATION AWARD AND DENYING MOTION TO VACATE

March 7, 2013 by Carlton Fields

In a summary order, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award issued in favor of NCG Network Asia and the denial of PAC Pacific Group International’s motion to vacate. The court found that the arbitrator had properly disclosed a prior business relationship that indirectly linked him with NCG Network Asia, nothing about the relationship would compel a reasonable person to believe that the arbitrator was partial, and that PAC Pacific Group had thus not made the requisite showing to entitle it to post-arbitration discovery on the arbitrator’s alleged bias. The court also held that there was nothing inappropriate in denying PAC Pacific Group’s challenges to the arbitrator based on alleged impartiality, which denials complied with governing AAA rules and, further, that the arbitrator’s conclusion that there was no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was in accord with applicable law. NGC Network Asia, LLC v. PAC Pacific Group International, Inc., No. 12-0967 (2d Cir. Feb. 11, 2013).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

COURT COMPELS ARBITRATION IN CEDENT DISPUTE WITH SIGNATORY REINSURERS AND STAYS PROCEEDING AGAINST NONSIGNATORIES

March 4, 2013 by Carlton Fields

Security Life Insurance Company was the successor to certain reinsurance agreements covering underlying life insurance risks. Pursuant to the agreements, the reinsurers created a trust in order to fund the required reserves. The trustee, INA Trust FSB, and the reinsurers thereafter allegedly created a new trust, transferred funds from the previous trust to one of the reinsurers, and/or its principal, but did not name Security Life as a beneficiary under the new trust, as allegedly required under the reinsurance agreements. The reinsurance agreements contained arbitration clauses. The trust agreements did not. Security Life brought suit against the trustee and the reinsurers and their principals in federal court. All the defendants moved to compel arbitration, or, in the alternative, stay the proceeding pending completion of arbitration. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration between Security Life and the defendants which were signatories to the arbitration agreement, and stayed the remainder of the action until completion of that arbitration. Security Life Insurance Co. of America v. Southwest Reinsure, Inc., Case No. 11-1358 (USDC D. Minn. Feb. 11, 2013).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

DECLARATORY RELIEF ACTION REJECTED AS A MEANS TO CHALLENGE INTERLOCUTORY ARBITRATION ORDERS FOR LACK OF “RIPENESS”

February 25, 2013 by Carlton Fields

In an arbitration related to an uninsured motorist insurance claim, the insured twice challenged the arbitrators’ discovery rulings by filing declaratory relief actions in state court. The first time, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the action for failure to first challenge the subject order with the arbitrators. The second time, after the appellant unsuccessfully challenged the orders with the arbitrators, the lower court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over interlocutory arbitration orders. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the result, but disagreed with the lower court’s reasoning. The court held that a declaratory relief action is indeed a “justiciable” matter under state law, notwithstanding that the underlying issue involved interlocutory arbitration orders. The court ultimately concluded, however, that based on the legislative history of the Uniform Arbitration Act, the action still should have been dismissed for lack of ripeness. The court explained, “The meaning of [the legislative history] could not be clearer: if there is a dispute about an issue that is subject to the arbitration agreement, then the courts cannot review the arbitrator’s ruling on that issue until after the arbitration process is complete.” Klehr v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., Case No. 1-12-1843 (Ill. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2013).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DECLINES TO ORDER PREJUDGMENT SECURITY FROM A FOREIGN NATIONAL DOING REINSURANCE BUSINESS

February 20, 2013 by Carlton Fields

Pine Top Receivables LLC (“PTR”) was formed when a buyer purchased the assigned rights under certain reinsurance contracts from the Illinois liquidator handling the Pine Top Insurance Company receivership. PTR then brought suit against reinsurer Banco De Seguros Del Estados, which had entered into reinsurance contracts with Pine Top. PTR alleged that Banco owed more than $2,000,000 in overdue balances on the contracts. PTR’s suit sought to compel arbitration. Banco filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. PTR moved to strike the motion, on the grounds that Banco had not paid prejudgment security under Illinois’ statute requiring security by a nonresident reinsurer. Banco resisted the motion, asserting that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act prohibited the assessment of any “attachment” on a foreign governmental entity. The Court agreed with Banco, finding that it is a government instrumentality of the Republic of Uruguay, and that pre-judgment security under the statute was effectively an “attachment” as the term is used in the Act. Pine Top Receivables of Illinois, LLC v. Banco De Seguros Del Estados, No. 12 C 6357 (USDC N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.