Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Second Circuit Joins Sister Circuits in Holding Party-Appointed Arbitrators Not Subject to Same Disclosure Requirements as Neutral Arbitrators

July 17, 2018 by Rob DiUbaldo

The Second Circuit recently held that parties seeking to vacate awards under Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(2) must satisfy a higher burden in showing evident partiality by a party-appointed arbitrator. The parties arbitrated a workers compensation reinsurance dispute and the losing party (Lloyds) moved to vacate the ultimate arbitral award on the ground that the prevailing party (ICA)’s selected arbitrator displayed evident partiality by failing to fully disclose his connections to ICA. The lower court vacated the award, finding that ICA’s appointed arbitrator’s undisclosed relationships were “more significant, more numerous, and involve[d] more financial entanglements” than would be acceptable, particularly in light of the “apparent willfulness” of the non-disclosure.

On appeal, the Second Circuit addressed as an issue of first impression what the appropriate standard is for a Section 10(a)(2) evident partiality challenge to a party-appointed arbitrator. The court disagreed with the lower court and instead followed the approach of other circuits in distinguishing between a heightened burden standard for party-appointed arbitrators and a reasonable person standard for neutral arbitrators. Despite the heightened burden, party-appointed arbitrators are subject to certain “baseline limits to partiality.” First, undisclosed relationships are material—and therefore warrant vacatur—if they violate the arbitration agreement. Here, the court noted, the only limitation in the arbitration agreement was that arbitrators be “disinterested,” in terms of financial and personal stake in the outcome. Second, undisclosed relationships are material if the complaining party can demonstrate the partiality had a prejudicial effect on the award.

As a result of this new framework, the Second Circuit remanded to the trial court to determine whether ICA’s arbitrator’s undisclosed relationships betrayed his disinterest or had a prejudicial effect on the arbitral award.

Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London v. Ins. Co. of Am., No. 17-1137 (2d Cir. June 7, 2018).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.

Ninth Circuit Confirms Arbitration Award Due to Failure to Preserve Objection to Arbitrability

July 12, 2018 by Michael Wolgin

Pioneer Roofing Organization (PRO) appealed an order from a federal district court granting summary judgment in favor of Sheet Metal Workers’ Local Union No. 104 on PRO’s petition to vacate the arbitrator’s award. PRO primarily argued that the arbitrator lacked authority to resolve the underlying grievance, arguing that it was a jurisdictional dispute not subject to arbitration. Reviewing de novo, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that PRO waived its arbitrability challenge by failing to preserve the issue through either of the two recognized methods for doing so: (1) objecting to the arbitrator’s authority, refusing to argue the arbitrability issue before the arbitrator, and proceeding to the merits of the grievance; or (2) making an objection as to jurisdiction and expressly reserving the question on the record. Pioneer Roofing Organization v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Local 104, Case No. 17-15296 (9th Cir. June 4, 2018).

This post written by Gail Jankowski.

See our disclaimer.

Fourth Circuit Upholds Arbitration Award Involving Termination of Employee

July 5, 2018 by John Pitblado

Affirming the trial court’s ruling, the Fourth Circuit upheld the denial of a motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award involving the termination of an employee.

The first challenge to the award was that “the arbitrator impermissibly ruled on whether 3D systems breached the Agreement’s manager terms – a matter not submitted to arbitration – and awarded damages based upon the breach.” The Court declined to vacate the award on this ground because “even if the arbitrator erred in determining that 3D Systems breached the manager term, the damages award is sufficiently supported by the arbitrator’s finding of three other breaches.”

The second challenge to the award was that “the arbitrator awarded [the employee] all of the potential earn-out and the amended award violated AAA Commercial Rule 50 and the common law doctrine of functus officio.” The Court declined to vacate the award on this ground, as the “district court did not err in refusing to modify the damages pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 11(a) because 3D Systems failed to allege a mathematical error that appears on the face of the award.” Moreover, the amended award did not violate functus officio or AAA Commercial Arbitration Rule 50 because it contained only minor changes for clarification purposes.

The third challenge to the award was that “the arbitrator failed to follow the parties’ agreed-upon methodology or the Agreement’s fee-sharing provision in calculating attorney’s fees and costs” The Court again declined to vacate the award on this ground, as “3D Systems again fails to show [it is] entitled to modification of the award under 9 U.S.C. § 11(a)” and, moreover “the arbitrator’s methodology followed the exact language of the unambiguous fee-sharing provision … the arbitrator was not bound the parties’ agreed-upon methodology.”

Barranco, et al. v. 3D Systems Corp., et al., No. 17-1744 (4th Cir. May 31, 2018)

This post written by Nora A. Valenza-Frost.

See our disclaimer.

Texas Federal Court Enforces Arbitration Award Under the New York Convention Despite Jurisdictional Challenge

May 21, 2018 by Carlton Fields

Respondent argued against the confirmation of the arbitral award as it was based upon the consent of the parties, rather than a disputed hearing, which it contended made the award not subject to the New York Convention, resulting in a lack of jurisdiction. The Court disagreed that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, citing to Albtelecom SH.A. v. UNIFI Commc’ns, Inc., 2017 WL 2364365 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017). The court noted that “[w]hile the tribunal did not make findings or reach legal conclusions, it made an award that bound parties, with its power. No binding or persuasive statutory language or case law requires a court to hold that a tribunal must reach its own conclusions, separate from the parties’ agreement, to make a valid binding award subject to the Convention.”

As Respondent did not argue that the award should not be confirmed on any ground but lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court found the award must be confirmed.

Transocean Offshore Gulf of Guinea VII Ltd., et al. v. Erin Energy Corp., No. H-17-2623 (USDC S.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2018)

This post written by Nora A. Valenza-Frost.
See our disclaimer.

Court of Appeal of England and Wales Finds That Party’s Forgery of Documents in Connection with a Transaction Does Not Bar Confirmation of Arbitration Award

May 15, 2018 by Rob DiUbaldo

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has rejected a challenge to an arbitration award issued by the China International Trade Arbitration Commission (the “Tribunal”) against RBRG Trading (UK) Limited in favor of Sinocore International Co. Ltd., despite an argument from RBRG that the award was contrary to public policy.

The matter arose from Sinocore’s agreement to sell steel to RBRG. The parties later amended the contract to give RBRG a right to inspect the steel, and RBRG claimed that the parties agreed to amend a letter of credit issued by a Dutch bank in connection to the transaction to change the shipping date to July 20 and 30, 2010. Sinocore then shipped the steel on July 7, 2010, a fact of which RBRG was informed, but presented bills of lading that falsely gave the date of July 20-21, 2010 to the bank. The bank refused to pay due to the fraudulent bills of lading, and Sinocore terminated the contract and sold the steel to a third party. RBRG then commenced the arbitration, claiming that Sinocore had breached the agreement to allow RBRG to inspect the steel by shipping it too soon, and Sinocore counterclaimed for damages related to the termination of the contract.

The Tribunal determined that RBRG had not asked to inspect the steel and had been timely notified of its shipment and thus could not claim damages from Sinocore’s failure to allow an inspection. The tribunal further determined that RBRG had breached the contract by instructing the bank to issue the amended letter of credit, an amendment to which Sinocore had not agreed. The Tribunal further determined that that forgery of the bills of lading had not harmed RBRG and had not been the cause of the termination of the agreement, which instead resulted from RBRG’s instruction to issue the non-conforming letter of credit.

When Sinocore attempted to enforce the award in the United Kingdom, RBRG argued that it should not be enforced because it was based on Sinocore’s forgery of bills of lading, and that it was contrary to public policy to assist a seller who present forged documents under a letter of credit. The court disagreed, however, and emphasized the importance both of enforcing arbitral awards and of strictly construing the exception for awards that violate public policy. Ultimately, relying in part on the Tribunal’s determination that RBRG’s conduct caused the contract to terminate, the court found that the connection between the forged bills of lading and the award was simply too weak to justify a departure from the general rule that arbitral awards should be enforced.

RBRG Trading (UK) Limited v. Sinocore International Co. Ltd., [2018] EWCA (Civ) 838

This post written by Jason Brost.

See our disclaimer.