Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

A District Court confirmed an arbitration award in a non-reinsurance context in Lebeau v. Oppenheimer & Co., rejecting contentions that the award should be vacated because, inter alia, the arbitrators did not allow sufficient discovery, did not adequately disclose conflicts and demonstrated bias. One interesting finding is that under the Federal Arbitration Act, one may waive such objections by raising them for the first time in the context of motions to confirm or vacate a later award, rather than raising them in the arbitration, at the time of the alleged misconduct. Lebeau v. Oppenheimer & Co., Case No. 05-5876 (USDC E.D. Pa. June 23, 2006).

In a non-reinsurance case, the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a District Court decision denying a request to vacate an arbitration award, which was based upon the contention that the arbitration panel committed misconduct by denying a request for a continuance of the final hearing that was submitted the day before the scheduled hearing. Laws v Morgan Stanley, 2006 WL 1579542, case no. 05-20626 (5th Cir. Je. 9, 2006).

In a non-reinsurance securities arbitration, the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that although courts “do not hesitate to vacate an award when an arbitrator is not selected according to the contract-specified method …” any departure from the terms of the parties' agreement in this case was trivial, not warranting vacatur of the arbitration award. Bulko v Morgan Stanley, 1006 WL 1460022, case no. 05-10242 (5th Cir. May 30, 2006).

In a non-reinsurance securities arbitration, the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that although courts “do not hesitate to vacate an award when an arbitrator is not selected according to the contract-specified method …” any departure from the terms of the parties' agreement in this case was trivial, not warranting vacatur of the arbitration award. Bulko v Morgan Stanley, 1006 WL 1460022, case no. 05-10242 (5th Cir. May 30, 2006).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in a non-reinsurance case that a District Court correctly denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award on the basis that the arbitration panel “manifestly disregarded the law” by applying Washington law, rather than Arizona law, because the decision was not “completely irrational” and did not constitute a manifest disregard of the law. Parsons v. Polen, 2006 WL 1082820, case no. 04-35654 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2006) (opinion not available on Court's web site).