Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Court Confirms Arbitration Award Against Non-Signatory Intervening Party in Arbitration

September 5, 2023 by Michael Wolgin

Paychex Inc. had entered into an agreement to provide a company, Dan-Gulf Shipping Inc., with payroll-related services. The agreement contained an arbitration clause governed by the rules of the American Arbitration Association. In 2020, Dan-Gulf commenced arbitration against Paychex under the AAA’s commercial arbitration rules. During the course of the arbitration, Paychex filed a motion to dismiss, but prior to the ruling of the arbitration panel on the motion, another company affiliated with Dan-Gulf, Caytrans BBC LLC, intervened in the arbitration. Paychex then refiled its motion to dismiss to address Caytrans’ claims, which the panel subsequently granted against Caytrans. The panel then entered a partial final award dismissing all of Caytrans’ claims against Paychex (with one of Dan-Gulf’s claims surviving against Paychex).

In September 2020, Paychex filed a petition to confirm the partial final award, to which Caytrans failed to respond. In February 2023, a default was entered against Caytrans. The court has now determined that it is proper for it to enter an order confirming the award. The court found that Paychex demonstrated that diversity subject matter jurisdiction existed over the case. The court also determined that, by electing to intervene in the AAA arbitration, Caytrans consented to the AAA rules, which authorize “that judgment upon the arbitration award may be entered in any federal or state court having jurisdiction thereof.” The court further found that the arbitration was venued, and the partial final award was made, in Rochester, New York, “which is within this judicial district.” Finally, the court determined that the partial final award was valid, there was no “apparent basis for the court not to confirm it,” and the fact that the partial final award “only disposed of the claims between Caytrans and Paychex and not the claims between Dan-Gulf and Paychex is not a barrier to confirmation.” The court therefore confirmed the partial final award.

Paychex, Inc. v. Caytrans BBC LLC, No. 6:22-cv-06411 (W.D.N.Y. July 31, 2023).

Second Circuit Affirms Confirmation of Arbitration Award Issued Under Cyprus-Libya Bilateral Investment Treaty

August 11, 2023 by Benjamin Stearns

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the confirmation of an arbitration award issued under a bilateral investment treaty between Libya and Cyprus. We previously described the underlying Southern District of New York opinion confirming the award in a prior post.

On appeal to the Second Circuit, Libya primarily argued that the district court erred by declining to independently review the arbitrability of the claims involved before confirming the final award. The Second Circuit disagreed with Libya’s contention that a de novo standard should have been applied to review the arbitral tribunal’s decision because Libya “clearly and unmistakably” agreed to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Libya indisputably agreed to arbitrate such issues when it signed the bilateral investment treaty providing Cypriot investors with the option of resolving disputes under the arbitral rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

In so holding, the court noted the consistent line of cases holding that “when one party is a signatory to a bilateral investment treaty containing a provision for arbitration, the treaty constitutes a standing offer to arbitrate disputes covered by the treaty, and a foreign investor’s written demand for arbitration completes the agreement in writing to submit the dispute to arbitration.” The bilateral investment treaty simply creates “a framework through which foreign investors can initiate arbitration against parties to the Treaty. Accordingly, all that is necessary to form an agreement to arbitrate is for one party to be a [bilateral investment treaty] signatory and the other to consent to arbitration of an investment dispute in accordance with the Treaty’s terms.”

Having determined that a valid arbitration agreement was formed upon submission of the claim to the arbitral tribunal of the ICC by the Cypriot investor, the court turned next to the question of arbitrability of the dispute. While courts presume that questions of arbitrability are for the court to decide, not the arbitrator, that presumption is overcome where the record “supplies clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to submit the issue to arbitration.” Such “clear and unmistakable” evidence of intent can be provided by the incorporation of rules that empower an arbitrator to decide issues of arbitrability. To determine whether such rules have been incorporated into the parties’ agreement, the courts look to both the text of the relevant bilateral investment treaty and the procedural rules adopted by the parties at the outset of the arbitration.

Here, the terms of the bilateral investment treaty authorized investors to submit a dispute to the ICC. ICC rules presumptively apply to disputes submitted to the ICC. Accordingly, by signing the bilateral investment treaty, “Libya clearly and unmistakably agreed to send questions of arbitrability” to the arbitrator. As a result, the district court was required to defer to the arbitrator’s determination of the arbitrability of the parties’ dispute. The Second Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s decision declining de novo review and confirmation of the ICC tribunal’s arbitration award.

Olin Holdings Ltd. v. State of Libya, No. 22-825 (2d Cir. July 12, 2023).

Southern District of New York Dismisses Petition to Confirm $145M Foreign Arbitration Award for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

August 4, 2023 by Brendan Gooley

The Southern District of New York recently dismissed a petition to confirm a $145 million arbitration award rendered in Hong Kong based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

Zhongzhi Hi-Tech Overseas Investment Ltd. obtained a $145 million arbitration award in Hong Kong against Dr. Vincent Wenyong Shi related to Dr. Shi’s and another company’s alleged failure to make contractually required payments.

Hi-Tech moved to confirm that award in the Southern District of New York. Dr. Shi moved to dismiss, claiming a lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that New York’s long-arm statute was not met and that jurisdiction did not comport with due process.

Hi-Tech argued that New York’s long-arm statute was met based on Dr. Shi’s (1) execution of a contract providing that New York law would govern that contract, (2) Dr. Shi’s defense of a lawsuit pending in the Southern District, and (3) Dr. Shi’s role as an executive of a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The district court rejected these arguments.

First, it noted that the contract had been amended and that its choice-of-law provision had been replaced by a new clause providing that Hong Kong law would govern. The original choice-of-law provision therefore provided no basis for jurisdiction, and Hi-Tech conceded that a choice-of-law provision “does not equate to consent to jurisdiction” in any event.

Second, Dr. Shi was involved in defending a suit in the Southern District against a company he was involved in, but “a party’s consent to jurisdiction in one case extends to that case alone” and therefore did not provide a basis for jurisdiction against Dr. Shi in this case.

Third, although a company Dr. Shi was a leader in had been listed on the New York Stock Exchange, having a company listed on the NYSE is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Even if it was, the company had been delisted and there was thus no basis for jurisdiction.

With respect to due process, the court noted that New York and the United States had little interest in the dispute and that Dr. Shi had little or no reason to expect to be hailed into court there.

Zhongzhi Hi-Tech Overseas Investment Ltd. v. Wenyong Shi, No. 1:22-cv-06977 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2023).

New Hampshire Supreme Court Vacates Arbitration Award Based on “Plain Mistake” of Law

July 20, 2023 by Benjamin Stearns

The city of Portsmouth terminated a police officer in the wake of a bequest made to the officer by a 92-year-old woman he had met while on duty. The officer had assisted the woman in finding an attorney to draft a new will leaving the majority of her estate to him, which she executed months before her death. Afterward, the city convened a task force to conduct an independent inquiry into the officer’s relationship with the decedent. The task force concluded that the officer’s actions violated the Portsmouth Code of Ethics and the Portsmouth Police Department Duty Manual, and the city terminated him based on the task force’s recommendation.

The beneficiaries of the decedent’s prior will had also initiated an action to contest the new will. That action resulted in a probate decision that concluded the new will must be invalidated due to undue influence by the officer. The probate decision was issued approximately one month after the city had already terminated the officer.

Meanwhile, the police union had filed a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement, which had been referred to arbitration. The city notified the union that it intended to introduce the probate decision at the arbitration hearing to justify the termination and as mitigating evidence relative to any remedy. After litigation of the issue, the probate decision was admitted as “after-acquired evidence” for purposes of determining the appropriate remedy but was not admitted to supply the “just cause” for the termination itself.

The arbitrator found that the officer’s misconduct was “severe” but nevertheless determined the city wrongfully terminated the officer due to its failure to correctly enforce its own rules and to properly supervise him. The arbitrator awarded the officer back pay from the date of his termination to the date the arbitrator held the firing to be unsupported by just cause. The city challenged the award in the New Hampshire Superior Court, arguing the arbitrator had made a “plain mistake” of law in determining the period of back pay, based in part on her rulings related to the introduction of the after-acquired evidence. The superior court confirmed the award.

On appeal, however, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed. The court noted that the “after-acquired evidence” doctrine applies to evidence of an employee’s misconduct — discovered by the employer after it has terminated the employee for an unlawful reason — which is so severe that the employer would have terminated the employee on those grounds alone had it known of the misconduct at the time of the discharge. After-acquired evidence may be introduced to bar or limit an employee’s recovery, but it may not be introduced to provide a basis for the termination itself.

Here, the arbitrator held that the city had not complied with due process requirements (imposed by Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill) to provide notice to an employee of the grounds for termination and an opportunity to be heard. However, the Loudermill requirements do not apply to after-acquired evidence, which concerns the calculation of damages resulting from a wrongful termination as opposed to the basis for the termination itself. As such, the city was not required to comply with the Loudermill notice requirements when it sought to introduce and rely on the after-acquired evidence in support of its argument to limit the officer’s recovery. The Supreme Court held that the arbitrator had committed a plain mistake of law, and vacated the lower court’s confirmation and directed it to remand the case to the arbitrator to reconsider the back pay award.

City of Portsmouth v. Portsmouth Ranking Officers Association, NEPBA, Local 220, No. 2021-0511 (N.H. June 7, 2023).

Seventh Circuit Affirms District Court’s Order Denying Application to Vacate Arbitration Award

May 24, 2023 by Kenneth Cesta

Donald Kinsella was an employee of defendant Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations LLC. In June 2013, he suffered a work-related injury resulting in his disability and receipt of disability benefits for three years. Baker Hughes’ human resources department worked with Kinsella to look for jobs at the company that would meet his accommodation request and physical limitations. Months later, Kinsella received a termination letter from Baker Hughes citing a failure to apply for a position. He eventually filed an action in federal court alleging failure to accommodate his disability, discriminatory discharge, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kinsella’s employment agreement included an arbitration clause, and the district court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the federal action pending arbitration. The district court then dismissed the action without prejudice with leave to reinstate within seven days of the arbitration ruling.

The matter proceeded to arbitration, and the arbitrator issued an award granting summary judgment for Baker Hughes on all claims. Kinsella filed an application with the district court to reinstate his case and to vacate the arbitration award with regard to his failure-to-accommodate claim. He sought to vacate the award under section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act contending that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by requiring illegitimate elements of proof on the failure-to-accommodate claim. The district court reinstated Kinsella’s action, but it denied the application to vacate the award and entered a judgment of dismissal. In affirming the district court’s denial of vacatur, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals first noted that under section 10(a)(4) of the FAA, an arbitration award may be vacated “where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” The court rejected Kinsella’s contentions that the arbitrator incorrectly interpreted the ADA and exceeded his authority by introducing “an extra element of proof into a claim.” The court found the arbitrator did not exceed his powers and affirmed the district court’s denial of Kinsella’s application to vacate the award.

Kinsella v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC, No. 22-2007 (7th Cir. May 8, 2023).