Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Court Finds Arbitration Panel Did Not Exceed Powers or Manifestly Disregard the Law in Confirming Award in Dispute Over Leasing of Oil Lands

by

The case relates to an arbitration award entered in a dispute between affiliated oil exploration and marketing companies, on the one hand, and owners of land leased to the oil companies, on the other hand. The leases at issue authorized the exploration company to produce and sell any oil and natural gas found there. In exchange, the owners of the land would receive royalties calculated as a percentage of the proceeds attributable to the production from each well. The owners objected to the amount of the royalties paid by the exploration company, which were calculated based on the exploration company’s sales of the oil and gas to its affiliated marketing company, instead of based on the higher amounts for which the marketing company would sell the oil and gas downstream to third parties. The dispute went to an arbitration, which found that the owners failed to provide evidence that the oil sales between the affiliated companies were less than what would occur in an arms-length transaction. The panel found that the exploration company had legitimately transferred title to the oil and gas, and received sufficient consideration from the affiliated marketing company.

The owners petitioned the court to vacate the award, arguing that the arbitrators “exceeded their powers” and “effectively dispensed their own brand of industrial justice,” and that they “manifestly disregarded the law.” The court rejected both arguments, disagreeing that the arbitrators “ignored the central question” in dispute. According to the court, the panel found that (1) title was transferred to the marketing company; (2) the exploration company marketed the oil and gas as required; (3) the exploration company made “legally sufficient accounting entries on their books and records to evidence transfer of title and consideration paid for the oil and gas”; (4) the leases permitted the exploration company to sell to an affiliate; and (5) the owners failed to provide evidence of any defects with the sales transactions. The court found, without expressing any opinion about whether the panel was correct, that the panel “stayed well within its powers to adjudicate the dispute and executed those powers appropriately.” The court further found that the panel did not manifestly disregard the law. The court explained that the panel “was asked to interpret contracts that were arguably inconsistent both internally and with one another, and it made an informed, careful judgment about how to do so.” The court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the oil companies and confirmed the award in its entirety.

Hale v. Chesapeake Expl., LLC, No. 4:18-cv-02217 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 25, 2019).

Court Holds That Arbitration Award Was Final and Definite and Arbitrator Did Not Manifestly Disregard the Law

by

In Ballinasmalla Holdings Ltd. v. FCStone Merchant Services, LLC, petitioners Ballinasmalla Holdings Ltd. (BHL) and Corrib Oil Biofuels LLC (Corrib Oil) brought an action seeking vacatur of a final arbitration award (“Final Award”) issued in favor of the respondents for approximately $5 million. The respondents, FCStone Merchant Services LLC (FCStone) and INTL FCStone Markets LLC (INTL FCStone), counter-claimed for confirmation of the Final Award and an earlier Partial Final Award.

Corrib Oil is a company that distributes and manufactures oil and petrol products. Corrib Oil entered into a contract with FCStone to purchase soybean oil. BHL agreed to act as a guarantor for Corrib Oil on the contract. BHL also acted as a guarantor on payments owed by Corrib Oil Company Ltd. (Corrib Ltd.), who was not a party to the litigation, to INTL FCStone on swap transactions pursuant to an International Swap Dealers Association (ISDA) agreement. Both contracts had arbitration clauses. FCStone and INTL FCStone demanded arbitration after a dispute over soybean deliveries and payment on the ISDA agreement. INTL FCStone concurrently filed an action in New York state court against Corrib Ltd. seeking to collect on the debt from its ISDA agreement.

The arbitrator granted a partial award on the soybean contract dispute and dismissed the ISDA guaranty claim. FCStone and INTL FCStone asked the arbitrator to reinstate their ISDA guaranty claim and hold a hearing, and the arbitrator agreed. The arbitrator thereafter issued the Final Award, and the petitioners then filed their petition to vacate.

The court denied the petitioners’ motion to vacate the Final Award and granted the respondents’ motion to confirm. The court held that the arbitration award was final and definite. The court explained that for an arbitration award to be final and definite “the arbitrators must have decided not only the issue of liability … but also the issue of damages.” This was true here, despite the related case that was on appeal in the New York state court regarding a separate entity. The court also held that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law governing stays. The court explained that a decision to stay the arbitration is a procedural matter governed under the procedural rules of the arbitration, i.e., the Commercial Rules of the AAA, and BHL did not make an argument that the arbitrator applied the wrong procedural rules or did so intentionally. Further, the court held that the petitioners did not demonstrate that the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law on attorneys’ fees. There was no assertion that the arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle and refused to apply it or intentionally ignored it. Last, the court held that post-award statutory interest, costs, and fees were warranted.

Ballinasmalla Holdings Ltd. v. FCStone Merch. Servs., LLC, No. 1:18-cv-12254-PKC, 2019 WL 1569802 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2019)

Second Circuit Vacates SDNY Order Enforcing Arbitration Award Against Reinsurer

by

In the latest iteration of a complex reinsurance dispute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a 2018 district court order enforcing an arbitration award against IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A. (IRB). We previously blogged about the district court order here. The arbitration award required IRB to indemnify National Indemnity Co. (NICO) against a claim by Companhia Siderurgica Nacional S.A. (CSN). NICO and CSN settled CSN’s claim in a settlement agreement to which IRB was not a party. The agreement provided that CSN would receive $5 million of the $9 million NICO owed, but that the funds would come from IRB through a lawsuit that NICO would commence against it, i.e., this action.

IRB appealed the 2018 district court order, arguing that the NICO/CSN settlement agreement could not have established its liability. The Second Circuit agreed. It held that IRB cannot be responsible for paying an amount determined by a contract to which it was not a signatory.

IRB next went a step further, arguing that the NICO/CSN settlement extinguished any obligation IRB had to indemnify NICO pursuant to the arbitration award. But the Second Circuit found IRB went too far in this regard. The court held that IRB is still potentially liable for the $5 million based on the arbitration award, which had already been confirmed in 2016, and affirmed in 2017. The court rejected IRB’s suggestion that a private contract between NICO and CSN could override obligations established by the arbitration award. The court strongly implied that a judgment determining NICO’s liability to CSN could trigger IRB’s indemnity obligations to NICO.

Nat’l Indem. Co. v. IRB Brasil Ressegurous S.A., No. 18-534-cv (2d Cir. Apr. 18, 2019)

Court Finds Jurisdiction Over Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award in Dispute Between Liquidator and Foreign Reinsurer

by

In the wake of the liquidation of Legion Indemnity Co., the Illinois Director of Insurance, as liquidator of Legion, and Catalina Holdings arbitrated claims originating under reinsurance agreements between Legion and a predecessor of Catalina. After the arbitrators ruled in favor of Catalina, Catalina filed a petition to confirm the award with the Northern District of Illinois. The Director moved to dismiss.

The court found that it had jurisdiction over the petition under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The arbitration agreement arose out of a dispute over reinsurance contracts, which are generally considered “commercial” under 9 U.S.C. § 2, and the contracts arose out of a relationship between a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the United Kingdom. Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 202, all arbitral awards fall under the Convention unless they arise out of “a relationship which is entirely between citizens of the United States.”

The court ruled against the Director’s argument that the Convention is reverse-preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act because the Convention did not “invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by [the] State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance.” Finally, the court found that Burford abstention would be inappropriate in this case. The Director argued, pursuant to Burford, that the court should “abstain from the exercise of federal review that would be disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter of substantial public concern.” There are two “essential elements” to this type of Burford abstention: The state must offer a forum where these claims may be litigated, and that forum must “stand in a special relationship of technical oversight or concentrated review to the evaluation of those claims.” The requisite elements were not present in this case and, as a result, the court refused to abstain.

Catalina Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Hammer, No. 1:18-cv-05642 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2019).

Ninth Circuit Finds No Foreign Arbitration Award to Uphold

by

Foreign arbitration awards must generally be upheld in the United States under treaty obligations. Upholding a foreign award requires that there actually be an arbitration award, however. For that matter, it requires an actual arbitration proceeding. A recent Ninth Circuit decision confronted a strange situation where there was no arbitration to confirm.

Michael Castro signed an employment agreement to be a commercial fisherman for Tri Marine. The agreement contained a mandatory arbitration provision that required him to arbitrate any disputes in and subject to the procedural rules of American Samoa. Castro was injured on the job. He released his claims in exchange for a cash settlement. The release also contained an arbitration clause requiring arbitration in American Samoa. Castro was then advised to go to an arbitrator in the Philippines with a representative of Tri Marine, though claimed he was told and believed he was merely picking up his settlement check. At the arbitrator’s office, Tri Marine filed a motion to dismiss the arbitration, even though there was not an arbitration case filed (indeed, there wasn’t even a case number assigned to the matter). The arbitrator granted that motion. Castro later required additional surgery and sought to bring suit in Washington state court in the United States. Tri Marine removed to Washington federal court, which dismissed the case.

The Ninth Circuit reversed. The court recognized that foreign arbitration awards must generally be upheld under the New York Convention, but concluded that there was no arbitral award under the facts. Although the arbitrator had issued a decision on a motion to dismiss, the parties had settled their dispute before the “case” was even filed. There was nothing to arbitrate. But even if there was an “arbitration,” it did not comply with the arbitration agreement’s arbitration clause or choice-of-venue provision. There was no evidence Castro waived those provisions. And even putting aside all those problems, the “arbitration” did not comply with the law of the Philippines concerning arbitration. The Ninth Circuit was careful to note that it was not infringing on “consent awards” whereby settlements reached during arbitration are turned into arbitration awards. That did not happen in this case. The court then remanded the case to the district court and instructed it to consider whether jurisdiction existed.

Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Co., No. 17-35703 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2019).