Arbitration Process Issues

California District Court Confirms Arbitration Award Properly Conducted Under ICC Rules

March 25, 2020 by Nora Valenza-Frost

The defendant sought to vacate an arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator prejudiced the defendant by refusing to order discovery it requested and failed to apply California law to the analysis of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Southern District of California disagreed with the defendant’s argument and confirmed the award.

As to the defendant’s argument concerning discovery, the court recognized that the arbitrator issued a series of procedural orders specifically addressing discovery and ordering the disclosure of documents. The court found that the defendant “failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator’s refusal to order disclosure of certain requested documents demonstrated deprived the defendant of an adequate opportunity to present its evidence and arguments” and concluded that the “arbitrator’s refusal to order disclosure of certain requested documents was not done in bad faith and was not so gross as to amount to affirmative misconduct.”

As to the defendant’s argument that the arbitrator failed to apply California law to the award of attorneys’ fees, the court found that the arbitrator did not exceed its authority by applying ICC rules to the award of costs and fees. The parties’ agreement provided that the arbitration “shall be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the ICC.” California law permits the parties to incorporate by reference into their contract the terms of another document. Here, the reference to the application of the ICC rules was “clear and unequivocal.” Moreover, the parties’ agreement provided that the arbitration award “may include an award of costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements.” The court determined, “pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the award of attorneys’ fees in the arbitration award is governed by ICC Rules” and concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed its authority.

Aeryon Labs, Inc. v. Datron World Communications, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-02168 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020).

“Grossly Excessive” Arbitration Award Overturned Due to “Evident Material Miscalculation”

March 9, 2020 by Benjamin Stearns

An arbitration award rendered pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) was overturned upon a finding that the award was “grossly excessive” and based on an “evident material miscalculation.” The award stemmed from a collective bargaining agreement that required an employer to submit to audits to determine whether the employer had made required contributions to certain ERISA funds. Upon the employer’s alleged failure to submit to the audits, the CBA assumed the employer to be delinquent and provided a procedure for estimating the amount of the deficiency.

The prescribed calculation estimated the employer’s deficiency at approximately $1.7 million, which ultimately yielded an arbitration award of approximately $2.3 million when interest, liquidated damages, and fees were included. After the union filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award, the parties notified the court that they were working together to perform the audit of the employer’s books that had initially triggered the dispute. Upon completion of the audit, the parties expected to settle based on the audit amount. The audit then revealed the employer’s actual deficiency to be $116,369.60, approximately 6.7% of the estimated deficiency ($1.7 million) and just 5% of the total arbitration award ($2.3 million).

The court’s analysis of the petition began by noting that the case was brought under the LMRA and, as such, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not apply. Judicial review under the LMRA is “very limited,” and courts are “not authorized to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties’ agreement.” Further, under the LMRA, “unless the award is procured through fraud or dishonesty, a reviewing court is bound by the arbitrator’s factual findings, interpretation of the contract, and suggested remedies.”

However, the court also noted that “federal courts have often looked to the FAA for guidance in labor arbitration cases.” Section 11 of the FAA permits modification of an arbitration award to “effect the intent” of the award and “promote justice between the parties” when there is an “evident miscalculation of figures.” Although the court did not find any mistake related to the application of the arbitration agreement’s prescribed method of calculating the employer’s deficiency, the court nevertheless found that the huge disparity between the actual deficiency and the estimated amount demonstrated that the award suffered from “an evident material miscalculation.” “The difference is striking, and it is clear that the estimated deficiency cannot be considered an approximation because it is roughly fifteen times the actual deficiency.”

Therefore, despite the strictures applied to judicial review under the LMRA, the court denied the petition to confirm and remanded the case to the arbitrator. In so doing, the court relied in part on the union’s statements that it would “agree to vacate the arbitration award upon completion of the new audit” and the parties’ multiple representations that they intended to settle based on the audit amount. The court also found that remand furthered the LMRA’s policy of “promoting industrial stabilization” by “discouraging awards that parties agree are obviously erroneous in light of objectively ascertainable facts.”

Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Carolina Trim LLC, No. 1:17-cv-06485 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2020).

Third Circuit Affirms Confirmation of Arbitration Award Despite Challenge That Damages Figure Was Completely Irrational

March 4, 2020 by Nora Valenza-Frost

In a challenge to an arbitration award on the basis that the arbitrators exceeded their powers in determining damages, the Third Circuit affirmed the District of New Jersey’s confirmation of the award.

First, the appellant argued that the arbitrator erred by using sales data instead of supply data in arriving at a damages figure. The court stated that this “is precisely the type of decision we have no authority to second-guess under the Federal Arbitration Act. … All that matters is that the arbitrator’s decision had some basis in the record.”

Second, the appellant argued that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in ordering quarterly royalty payments be made to the appellee, since the appellant cannot be made to pay royalties until its claims regarding patent invalidity and unenforceability have been adjudicated. The court noted that the “arbitrator clearly grappled with the import of the Lear decision” and found the appellee’s arguments to be more persuasive. “That good faith effort is more than enough to demonstrate that he did not manifestly disregard Lear.”

PNY Technologies, Inc. v. NETAC Technology Co., No. 19-1635 (3d Cir. Feb. 10, 2020).

Kentucky District Court Confirms Arbitration Award Allocating All Environmental Contamination Costs to Petitioner

March 2, 2020 by Nora Valenza-Frost

Following a 2007 settlement concerning the allocation of investigation and remediation costs incurred due to environmental contamination at an industrial complex, the parties agreed to resolve the litigation between the parties and arbitrate the allocation of certain environmental costs. The parties engaged in arbitration from May 2017 to May 2019. The panel issued a final unanimous award assigning 100% of the allocable costs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to vacate the award on the basis that: (1) the arbitrators exceeded their powers by imposing the burden of proof on the plaintiff in violation of the 2007 settlement agreement; (2) the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the legal principle that rejects incremental cost allocation; and (3) the award violated public policy requiring polluters to pay for the environmental harm they cause. The court disagreed with the plaintiff’s arguments and confirmed the award.

As to the plaintiff’s first argument concerning the burden of proof, the court concluded that the settlement agreement was silent as to which party should bear the burden of proof at arbitration. Additionally, the section cited by the plaintiff merely established the procedure by which the parties may initiate arbitration and required “the initiating party to state the amount of Allocable Costs it contends should be assigned to each party, including a brief statement in support of that allocation, presumably to notify the other party what issues will be arbitrated.”

As to the plaintiff’s second argument as to incremental cost allocation, the court found that the panel did not disregard any legal principal but simply found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant “had actually contributed in any material way to the contamination at the Site, or that [the defendant’s] activities were the cause of any of the costs at issue.”

As to the plaintiff’s third argument regarding public policy, the panel found that the “evidence did not establish the amount of contamination caused by [the defendant’s] alleged poor remediation, or the fact or amount of any cost for remediation of any such contamination” for which the defendant would be financially responsible. Thus, 100% of the allocable costs were assigned to the plaintiff, which was not in violation of any public policy.

PolyOne Corp. v. Westlake Vinyls, Inc., No. 5:19-cv-00121 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2020).

First Circuit Refuses to Vacate Arbitration Award Following Stock Dispute

February 13, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The First Circuit recently denied a corporation’s numerous arguments seeking to vacate an arbitration award in favor of the individual who sold an entity to the corporation. The court’s decision reflected the narrow review of arbitration awards and the uphill battle that litigants face when trying to vacate such awards, even when arbitrators allegedly misinterpret contracts.

IBC Advanced Alloys Corp. purchased Beralcast from Gerald Hoolahan and Gary Mattheson in exchange for cash and IBC stock. When Hoolahan later tried to sell his stock, his brokerage firm told him it had been “unsuccessful in obtaining approval [for the sale] from the issuer.” Hoolahan’s attorney called IBC and was told that IBC had blocked the sale of Hoolahan’s shares because Hoolahan allegedly failed to disclose a claim against a sister company to one of Beralcast’s predecessor companies. Even worse, Hoolahan later learned that IBC had allowed Mattheson to sell his shares. Hoolahan initiated arbitration pursuant to the sale agreement.

The arbitrator ruled in Hoolahan’s favor, concluding that IBC had denied Hoolahan the benefit of the agreement and deliberately breached it. After concluding that IBC acted in bad faith, the arbitrator awarded Hoolahan his costs and fees. Hoolahan moved to confirm the award, while IBC moved to vacate or modify it. The district court confirmed the award and IBC appealed.

The First Circuit affirmed. Noting that review of arbitration awards is exceptionally narrow, the court first rejected IBC’s argument that the award was procured by undue means because it was based on testimony by Hoolahan’s attorney regarding his call to IBC, which IBC claimed violated ethical rules regarding contacting a party represented by counsel. The court explained that the arbitrator concluded that Hoolahan’s attorney’s call did not violate ethical rules because the attorney had credibly testified that he did not know IBC was represented by counsel until the end of the call and noted that the arbitrator’s determination of “ill-will” between IBC and Hoolahan was based on more than the call by Hoolahan’s attorney in any event.

IBC next claimed that the arbitrator acted improperly by not postponing the arbitration hearing when the IBC employee who spoke to Hoolahan’s attorney could not be present and by refusing to accept an affidavit from the employee. The First Circuit rejected that claim as well. The court noted that IBC never asked for a postponement and did not raise that argument before the district court. Nevertheless, applying plain error review to the argument, the court rejected this argument as “border[ing] on the absurd.” The arbitrator did not act improperly by not granting a continuance sua sponte or by allowing an affidavit in lieu of live testimony.

The First Circuit also rejected IBC’s argument that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers by awarding Hoolahan his costs and fees. Under Delaware law, which governed the agreement, costs and fees were appropriate where, as here, the arbitrator made a finding of “bad faith.”

IBC also claimed that the arbitrator misinterpreted the agreement because the agreement noted that IBC disclaimed any obligation to help Hoolahan sell his shares. The court rejected that argument, noting the very narrow scope of its review: “Even if IBC is right that the arbitrator did not correctly interpret the Agreement, he nonetheless interpreted it. And that is enough.”

Finally, the First Circuit also rejected IBC’s arguments regarding the arbitrator’s calculation of damages, concluding that IBC had not shown “manifest disregard of the law.”

The First Circuit awarded costs to Hoolahan.

Hoolahan v. IBC Advanced Alloys Corp., No. 19-1444 (1st Cir. Jan. 17, 2020).