Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Uber Price Fixing Class Action Award Still Fares Despite Arbitrator’s Unfunny Joke

August 19, 2020 by Nora Valenza-Frost

The petitioner unsuccessfully sought to vacate an arbitration award permitting Uber’s use of a “surge” pricing algorithm to set fares, arguing that comments made by the arbitrator reflected his “evident partiality” toward Uber in violation of 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2). Specifically, on the third day of the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator offered concluding remarks on the record including the statement: “I must say I act out of fear. My fear is if I ruled Uber illegal, I would need security. I wouldn’t be able to walk the streets at night. People would be after me.” The petitioner also argued the arbitrator was “starstruck” by the presence of Kalanick, Uber’s co-founder and then CEO, taking his picture on the first day of the hearing.

Uber first argued that the petitioner waived his right to seek vacatur by waiting until after the arbitrator ruled against him. The court agreed, as attacks on the qualifications of arbitrators on grounds previously known but not raised until after an award has been rendered are precluded. The petitioner’s claim that vacatur of an “openly partial award” is not waivable was “belied by Second Circuit precedent.” The court also agreed with Uber’s second argument, that the arbitrator’s conduct did not justify vacatur, finding the arbitrators remarks “were simply an attempt at humor – one of many made by the arbitrator throughout the hearing.”

Meyer v. Kalanick & Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-09796 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2020).

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Denial of Imax Corp.’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Tribunal Rulings That Included Awards of Nearly $1 Million in Arbitration Costs and Attorney’s Fees

June 24, 2020 by Michael Wolgin

The arbitration awards involved several agreements for the sale, lease, and maintenance of Imax theater systems in South and Central America and the Caribbean. The arbitral tribunal issued a partial final award, and then several months later the tribunal issued its final award that resolved requests for relief on which it had deferred ruling. The tribunal ordered Imax to pay the opposing party $971,525.38 in arbitration costs, representing $800,000 in attorneys’ fees, and 70% of the administrative fees and expenses of the International Dispute Resolution Procedures of the American Arbitration Association, as well as 70% of the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators, which totaled $171,525.38. Imax challenged the awards, but the district court denied vacatur. The Eleventh Circuit then affirmed the denial, finding that the district court properly denied vacatur because Imax “failed to carry its burden to establish” (1) a defense under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or (2) that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its powers under the Federal Arbitration Act.

IMAX Corp. v. Giencourt Investments, S.A., No. 20-10491 (11th Cir. May 28, 2020).

SDNY Severs Arbitration Award to Confirm in Part and Vacate in Part

May 6, 2020 by Nora Valenza-Frost

Following clarification by the arbitrator of his arbitration award, the parties sought confirmation, vacature, and/or modification of the award. The court found the award lacked finality: the issue of warrants was before the arbitrator, but even upon the request to clarify the economic value of the warrants, the arbitrator “expressly stated that he did not reach any conclusion as to that issue.” Thus, if the court were to confirm the award as it stood, “it would undoubtedly result in further litigation to determine the economic value of the warrants.” The court therefore requested that the arbitrator limit his decision to the dollar amount to which the petitioner was entitled and confirmed the remainder of the award.

Three Brothers Trading, LLC v. Generex Biotechnology Corp., No. 1:18-cv-11585 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2020).

Court Confirms Arbitration Award Against Parties Who Failed to Attend Arbitration

April 20, 2020 by Benjamin Stearns

The Northern District of Texas has confirmed an arbitration award for Wells Fargo against Energy Product Co. and Energy Transport and Logistic LLC. Neither Energy Product nor Energy Transport participated in the arbitration or filed a response to the motion to confirm. Unanswered motions to confirm an arbitration award are treated as unopposed motions for summary judgment and do not result in a default judgment. Therefore, the movant must demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Wells Fargo demonstrated that there was no factual dispute here and that it was entitled to judgment. Wells Fargo was required to show that, as required by the Federal Arbitration Act, the proceedings were not “fundamentally unfair.” A “fundamentally fair hearing requires only notice, opportunity to be heard and to present relevant and material evidence before the decision-makers, and that the decision-makers are not infected with bias.” After reviewing the record, the court determined that standard was met in this case, despite that neither Energy Product nor Energy Transport attended the arbitration hearing. The court found that they had both received fair notice of the hearing but simply chose not to attend. While all parties to an arbitration proceeding are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard, “due process is not violated if the hearing proceeds in the absence of one of the parties when that party’s absence is the result of his decision not to attend.”

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Energy Prod. Co., No. 3:19-cv-02014 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2020).

District Court of Maryland Denies Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award

April 15, 2020 by Nora Valenza-Frost

The petitioner filed a complaint seeking to vacate an arbitration award, and the respondents moved to dismiss. Despite “the deferential standard of review” given to arbitration awards and the petitioner’s “significantly challenging road ahead,” the district court denied the respondents’ motion.

First, the court determined that the motion to vacate was timely, as the petitioner had 90 days (until January 3, 2020) to move to vacate the arbitration award under both the Federal Arbitration Act and Missouri law, which applied to the parties’ dispute.

Second, the court determined that service of the motion to vacate was timely under the FAA, as the petitioner delivered notice of its motion to vacate physically and electronically by the January 3 deadline, despite the fact that a signed summons was not included until the motion to vacate was again hand-delivered – at the request of respondents’ counsel – three days later. “Though the January 6, 2020 deadline was technically outside of the FAA’s limitations period, the Court finds that Respondents had adequate notice of this action as of January 3, 2020.”

Third, the court determined that the petitioner’s payment of the award within 30 days of the arbitration decision, as required by FINRA, did not foreclose it from pursuing its motion to vacate the award.

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. v. Stern, No. 1:20-cv-00005 (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2020).