Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

A set of former franchisees are prohibited from violating the terms of a non-compete clause with franchisor Wild Bird Centers of America (“WBCA”) for two years after the Fourth Circuit recently upheld the denial of their petition to vacate an arbitration award imposing the injunction. The franchisees had continued to operate a Wild Bird Center store after their ten-year franchise agreement expired and they chose not to renew it. WBCA submitted the dispute to mandatory arbitration, and the arbitrator issued an injunction prohibiting the franchisees from violating the non-compete.

First, the franchisees argued the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law, exceeded his powers, and failed to issue an award from the essence of the franchise agreement by applying the non-compete clause. The court rejected these claims as merely alleging the arbitrator misinterpreted the agreement. The non-compete clause’s language suggesting application “after termination” in contrast to a later section’s language suggesting application “[i]n the event of termination or expiration” of the franchise agreement was “at worst ambiguous” and “at best, support[ed] WBCA’s position.” Therefore, the arbitrator’s application “arguably” construed the contract sufficient to warrant confirmation.

Second, the franchisees claimed that, even if the non-compete clause applied, the arbitrator erred by extending the clause’s terms to two years because such an interpretation did not draw from the essence of the agreement. The court rejected these claims based on another case which held it reasonable to enforce compliance with a non-compete to include the total time which the aggrieved party was entitled to under the non-compete clause. Further, the franchisees failed to show the arbitrator acted from personal notions of right and wrong or disregarded the correct legal standards. Specifically, the court noted the limited nature of the injunction term and lack of demonstrated prejudice from the extension because the franchisees had yet to stop operating the competing business. The court affirmed the district court’s order confirming the award. Frye v. Wild Bird Ctrs. of Am., Inc., Case No. 17-1346 (4th Cir. Nov. 27, 2017).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.

A federal district court in California confirmed a FINRA arbitration award last month in a lawsuit by Global eBusiness against its broker for alleged mishandling of Global’s margin account. Overall, the court found that Global failed to live up to its burden to justify vacating the award on either of the two grounds asserted. First, the court observed that Global provided no evidence that the panel failed to evaluate evidence pertinent and material to its claims and concluded the procedural decisions complained of were well within the arbitrators’ broad discretion. Second, Global neglected to identify any governing law that the panel allegedly misapplied or disregarded. As an aside, the court likewise dismissed Global’s arguments for vacatur based on the California Code of Civil Procedure because it likely did not apply to the dispute, nor did Global provide sufficient support for their arguments thereunder.

Global eBusiness Servs., Inc. v. Interactive Brokers LLC, Case No. 16-1264 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2017).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.

A Colorado federal court affirmed a FINRA arbitration award, despite a cross-motion to vacate the award on the bases of alleged panel misconduct; exceeding its powers; manifest disregard of the law; and that the award did not contain a showing as to how the evidence justifies the award.

First, the Court rejected defendant’s argument that the Panel’s refusal to grant a second continuance did not amount to misconduct. Following the first continuance, defendant was given ample time – three months – to obtain new counsel and have them prepare for the hearing.

Second, the Court also rejected defendant’s argument that the panel exceeded its powers by hearing and ruling on claims that were beyond the Panel’s jurisdiction under FINRA rules. The Court reasoned that, “because it was for the Panel and not this Court to decide whether Plaintiff’s claims fell within Rule 12206(a)’s six-year time frame, the Court reject[ed] Defendant’s invitation to second-guess the Panel’s interpretation of FINRA Rule 12206(a).”

Third, the Court rejected defendant’s argument that the Panel acted in manifest disregard of the law by hearing, and ruling on, claims which were barred by state law under the relevant statutes of limitations. The Court reasoned that, even if the Panel had erroneously applied the applicable statutes of limitations, “incorrect application of a state’s statute of limitations does not rise to the level of manifest disregard of the law.”

Lastly, the Court rejected defendant’s argument that the award did not contain a showing as to how the evidence justifies the award, findings of fact or conclusions of law. Despite this argument being improperly raised in defendant’s reply, the arbitration provision specifically stated the arbitrators do not have to explain the reasons for their award, and the “Panel could have reasonably concluded that this provision allowed the Panel to dispense with written findings of fact and conclusions of law”.

Huitt v. Wilbanks Securities, Inc., 1:17-cv-00919 (USDC D. Col. Oct. 19, 2017)

This post written by Nora A. Valenza-Frost.

See our disclaimer.

In a summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitral award of damages for breach of a merger agreement between respondents Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and Arges Imaging Inc. (“Sirona”) and petitioners, former shareholders of Arges Imaging Inc. On appeal, Sirona argued that the lower court should have vacated the award because the arbitrator (1) disregarded the plain terms of the agreement when it concluded that petitioners were entitled to recover a $3 million bonus based on the proven accuracy of their dental-imaging product and (2) manifestly disregarded Delaware’s prohibition on speculative damages in awarding petitioners approximately $4 million under a provision tied to the dental-imaging product’s expected revenues.

The Second Circuit found that the arbitrator did not disregard the plain terms of the agreement and similarly did not manifestly disregard Delaware law in its damages calculation. On the first issue, the Second Circuit found that “[w]hether or not we would ourselves construe the Agreement” as the arbitrator did was inapposite; “the arbitrator’s interpretation was supported by at least a ‘barely colorable justification,’ which suffices to confirm the award.” On the second issue, the Second Circuit rejected Sirona’s argument that the arbitrator ignored Delaware law, instead finding that the arbitrator cited Delaware precedent proscribing awards of “speculative” damages and concluding that petitioners’ damages calculations met Delaware’s requirement that “damages be shown with reasonable certainty.” Moreover, the Second Circuit found that the arbitrator did not disregard the general rule in Delaware prohibiting damages based on evidence of expected profits from a new business or technology. Bergheim v. Sirona Dental Systems Inc., Case No. 17-548-cv (2d Cir. Oct. 11, 2017).

This post written by Gail Jankowski.

See our disclaimer.