Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

The Third Circuit Affirms District Court’s Confirmation of Arbitration Award, Finding That the Panel Did Not Exceed its Powers or Manifestly Disregard the Law

November 26, 2018 by John Pitblado

The complete procedural background of this “not precedential” case can be found here. In sum, this case stems from a 2007 lease agreement between Ross Dress for Less, Inc. (“Ross”) and VIWY, L.P. (“VIWY”) for Ross to be a tenant in VIWY’s shopping center. The lease included a provision which required VIWY to maintain a minimum amount of tenants in the shopping center, and allowed Ross to pay a reduced rent if the provision was not satisfied. In March 2011, Ross wrote to VIWY, claiming that the provision had not been met, it had overpaid its rent for two years and that VIWY must refund the excess rent payments, to which VIWY refused. In response, Ross paid a reduced rent from March 2011 until September 2011, at which time VIWY terminated the lease. In January 2012, Ross filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania federal court against VIWY, alleging that VIWY breached the lease causing Ross to overpay rent (the “overpayment claim”). VIWY counter-claimed that Ross had improperly offset its rent from March 2011 to September 2011 (the “offset claim”), and moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. The Pennsylvania district court denied VIWY’s motion and stayed the offset claim, pending resolution of the overpayment claim. VIWY appealed to the Third Circuit, which vacated the order and remanded the matter to the Pennsylvania district court. The Third Circuit found that the terms of the lease required arbitration of the offset claim, but did not require arbitration of the overpayment claim. However, because the claims were “inextricably linked,” the Third Circuit held that arbitration of both claims was appropriate. On remand, the Pennsylvania district court stayed the litigation pending the completion of the arbitration. Thereafter, in March 2015, Ross demanded arbitration. VIWY raised a statute of limitations defense, arguing that because Ross had filed its demand more than four years after the alleged breach, his overpayment claim was untimely under Pennsylvania’s four-year statute of limitations. The Arbitration Panel rejected this argument, finding that Ross’s filing of its complaint had suspended the running of the limitations period, assuming the statute of limitations applied to arbitration proceedings (which the Panel noted was unsettled under Pennsylvania law). The Panel also concluded that VIWY breached the lease agreement, awarding Ross over $1.8 million. Ross then moved in the Pennsylvania district court to confirm the arbitration award, and VIWY cross-moved to vacate, arguing that the Panel exceeded its powers under the Federal Arbitration Act, or alternatively acted in manifest disregard of Pennsylvania law. The district court denied VIWY’s motion to vacate, and granted Ross’s motion to confirm. VIWY appealed to the Third Circuit.

First, in reviewing VIWY’s contention that the Panel exceeded its powers when it allegedly misapplied Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations, the Third Circuit noted that the Arbitration Panel assumed the statute of limitations applied to arbitration proceedings and analyzed whether tolling was warranted. Thus, the Third Circuit noted that Ross’s complaint asserting the overpayment claim — which was filed well within the four-year statute of limitations — tolled the limitations period. The Third Circuit also noted that, in any event, an erroneous ruling that Ross’s lawsuit tolled the statute of limitations does not amount to an excessive abuse of the Panel’s power. In its analysis, the Third Circuit also noted that VIWY previously took the position that an arbitrator should resolve Ross’s overpayment claim. Thus, according to the Third Circuit, resolution of Ross’s overpayment claim necessarily included determining how Pennsylvania law, and in particular Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations, affected the parties’ rights under the lease. Thus, the Court found that because the Panel’s interpretation “went against” VIWY does not now give VIWY the right “to rerun the matter in a court.” As to VIWY’s alternative argument that the arbitration award should be vacated because the Panel acted in manifest disregard of the law when it allegedly misapplied Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations, the Third Circuit noted that the Panel did not “willfully flout” Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations and its tolling jurisprudence. The Third Circuit held that because the answer to the tolling question was not obvious, it could not say that the Panel manifestly disregarded Pennsylvania’s law concerning the statute of limitations. Thus, the Third Circuit affirmed the Pennsylvania district court’s decision.

Ross Dress for Less Inc. v. VIWP, L.P., et al, No. 17-3145 (3rd Cir. Oct. 24, 2018).

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.

See our disclaimer.

Court Invalidates Modified Arbitration Award Because it Exceeded Panel’s Authority Under the Functus Officio Doctrine

November 13, 2018 by Michael Wolgin

An insured and its insurer were fighting over whether the insured’s settlement payment in separate litigation was a covered loss and whether there was a duty to defend in the separate litigation. During arbitration, the parties agreed the panel would issue an immediate decision on the insurer’s liability under the policies and subsequently determine the amount of defense costs. The panel issued a “partial final award” finding the insured was entitled to defense and indemnification on the claims at issue in the separate litigation, but also finding the settlement payment itself was not a covered loss; thus, the panel ordered an evidentiary hearing on the calculation of defense costs. The insured requested reconsideration of the partial final award and the panel issued a “corrected partial final award.” The insurer sought relief in court to vacate the corrected award and confirm the original award, and while that proceeding was pending the panel issued a “final” award calculating the appropriate defense costs. The court denied the insurer’s motion to vacate.

On appeal of the lower court’s denial of the motion to vacate, the appellate court vacated the corrected and purported final awards and confirmed the original award because the panel exceeded its authority in reconsidering the “partial final award.” Specifically, the court relied upon the common law doctrine of functus officio that prevents arbitrators from changing a previously-rendered, final award except in limited technical circumstances. During the arbitration, the parties agreed the panel would make an immediate and final determination as to liability before proceeding to a second evidentiary hearing on the calculation of defense costs. Once the panel exercised its authority to make a final decision on liability and issued the “partial final award,” its authority ended and it could not revisit the issue of liability. The court dismissed the panel’s statement in the corrected awards that the “partial final award” was not in fact “final” because that would eviscerate the purpose of functus officio to allow a panel to regain authority by stating its prior award was not final. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Allied Capital Corp., Case No. 656341/16 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 25, 2018).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.

Court Refuses to Confirm “Interim Decision” Arbitration Award Under the New York Convention

November 12, 2018 by Michael Wolgin

An “Interim Decision” issued by three Rabbinical Court arbitrators based in New York was not “final” and therefore could not be confirmed in federal court pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”). Under the New York Convention, an award is “final” if it “resolves the rights and obligations of the parties definitively enough to preclude the need for further adjudication with respect to the issue submitted to arbitration. Thus, an award that finally and conclusively disposes of a ‘separate and independent claim’ may be confirmed even if it does not dispose of all the claims that were submitted to arbitration.”

In this case, the Interim Decision issued by the Rabbinical Court was not confirmable because, although the award finally determined liability as to some of the issues presented, it did not finally determine the amount of damages flowing from that liability, but rather left open the possibility that the amount of damages awarded could change depending on evidence yet to be presented. Although there is some authority stating that the parties can agree to treat an arbitration panel’s partial final determination as to certain issues as “final” for purposes of confirmation, those cases involved “express bifurcation of issues,” which did not exist in this case. Instead, the parties had “merely consented to the issuance of such intermediate decisions.” Their agreement was silent as to whether those intermediate decisions were to be treated as “final” with regard to the issues therein.

The court also found that the Interim Decision’s statement that certain issues were not susceptible to adjudication by the panel was not capable of being confirmed by the court because it was not even an “award,” let alone a “final award,” as it did not “in any way resolve any issue submitted to arbitration.” With regard to certain “other claims” that were summarily denied via the Interim Decision, the court could not confirm them on the present record because there was no indication in the award “as to what the other claims … are” and as a result the court was “without a basis to determine whether any justification exist[ed] for confirmation of the Interim Decision.”
In addition, the court denied the petitioner’s motion to enforce an arbitration subpoena under section 7 of the FAA because section 7 “explicitly confers authority only upon arbitrators” to issue subpoenas, and the subpoena in this case was issued by the petitioner himself, albeit purportedly “in the name of” the arbitration panel. The court held that a party may not invoke the authority of section 7 by issuing a subpoena “in the name of” the arbitrators; rather, the arbitrators themselves must issue the subpoena. Sharbat v. Muskat, Case No. 17-CV-4776 (USDC E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.

See our disclaimer.

Tenth Circuit Confirms Arbitration Award Against Non-Party Surety

November 8, 2018 by John Pitblado

Sujit Ghosh, President of Open Orbit Corporation, entered into a Personal Guaranty for the “full and timely performance of and by” Open Orbit under a Retailer Agreement with DISH Network, LLC. The Personal Guaranty included a final and binding arbitration clause of “any and all disputes, controversies or claims arising out of or in connection with this Personal Guaranty.” A dispute arose, and arbitration commenced. Ghosh requested the arbitrator remove him from the arbitration which was denied, as the arbitrator required a written agreement signed by DISH releasing Ghosh from the Personal Guaranty. DISH prevailed and obtained a $220,000 arbitration award (plus post-award interest).

The District Court confirmed the award, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed, noting “Ghosh elected to appear in the existing arbitration, where he professed faith in the arbitrator, claimed to have provided all the evidence relevant to his request to nullify or cancel his liability under the Personal Guaranty, and acknowledged that the arbitrator’s decision would be final and binding.” There were no allegations of arbitrator misconduct.

The Tenth Circuit also rejected Ghosh’s argument that, because he was not a party to the arbitration, issue preclusion is not applicable, as Ghosh “raised and actually litigated the validity of his personal guaranty in the arbitration even though he was not a party to the arbitration itself.” Furthermore, exceptions to the rule again nonparty preclusion were present.

DISH Network, LLC v. Ghosh, No. 18-1131 (10th Cir. Oct. 11, 2018)

This post written by Nora A. Valenza-Frost.

See our disclaimer.

Southern District of New York Confirms Arbitration Award Despite Allegation of Undisclosed Real Party in Interest

November 1, 2018 by Rob DiUbaldo

After Hurricane Sandy hit the east coast in 2012, the Army Corps of Engineers contracted with Environmental Chemical Corp. (ECC) to conduct clean up on Fire Island, New York. ECC subcontracted most of the work to Coastal Environmental Group, Inc. (Coastal). Both entities incurred unexpected costs, which ECC blamed on Coastal and Coastal blamed on factors outside of its control. ECC then refused to pay Coastal a portion of the money it was otherwise due under the contract, and Coastal commenced an arbitration that ended with an award in Coastal’s favor.

ECC moved to vacate the award, focusing on two main issues: (1) Coastal’s failure to disclose the interest of its creditor Signature Bank in the matter; and (2) the arbitrator’s decision that ECC was estopped from challenging certain calculations of costs that Coastal had provided during the litigation because ECC has used those same calculations in submissions to the Army Corps of Engineers.

Documents filed after the award was issued showed that all of Coastal’s rights to payment under its agreement with ECC had been assigned to Signature Bank, which had agreed to take over all efforts to collect amounts due under the contract. ECC argued that Signature Bank was thus the real party in interest, and that Coastal’s failure to disclose this assignment of claims tainted the entire proceeding, including because this prevented the arbitrator from performing a proper conflict check. However, the court found that ECC had presented no evidence that Coastal or its attorneys ever made any affirmative misrepresentations on the question of Signature Bank’s role in the matter and that Coastal had informed ECC prior to the arbitration that one of its attorneys was also an attorney for Signature Bank. The court also found that ECC presented no evidence that a conflict check that included Signature Bank would have led the arbitrator to be conflicted out of the matter, and that “raising only the specter of potential but totally unknown conflicts” was not enough to show objective facts inconsistent with impartiality, as is needed to vacate an award on the basis of “evident partiality.”

Regarding the arbitrator’s invocation of equitable estoppel, ECC argued that, by raising the issue sua sponte and without briefing from the parties, the arbitrator exceeded his authority. The court disagreed, finding that the relevant portion of the contract specifically said that Coastal’s rights to certain compensation should be based on what “is equitable under all of the circumstances,” thus inviting the arbitrator to consider the equitable doctrine of estoppel. The court also noted that ECC had provided no authority suggesting that an arbitrator cannot consider an issue that was not briefed by the parties. Thus, the court confirmed the award.

Environmental Chemical Corp. v. Coastal Environmental Group, Inc., 18 Civ. 3082 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2018).

This post written by Jason Brost.

See our disclaimer.