Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Comity

Corporacion Mexicana de Mantenimieneto Integral v. Pemex-Exporacion y Produccion, Case No. 1:10-cv-00206 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2013) (confirming $400 million Mexican arbitration award; refusing to enforce Mexican judgment nullifying award; Mexican judgment “violated basic notions of justice in that it applied a law that was not in existence at the time the parties contract was formed and left [the party in arbitration] without an apparent ability to litigate its claims”)

Manifest Disregard/Exceeding Authority

Dewan v. Walia, Case No. 12-2175 (4th Cir. Oct. 28, 2013) (vacating judgment that confirmed award in favor of former employee and remanding to district court with instructions to vacate the award; award was “manifest disregard of the law; “neither linguistic gymnastics, nor a selective reading of Maryland contract law, could support [the arbitrator’s] conclusion that the Release was enforceable but that [employee’s] claims were arbitrable anyway”)

Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Watts, Case No. 12-1464 (4th Cir. Oct. 1, 2013) (affirming order confirming award for unpaid balance on employee loan; reversing ruling vacating arbitration panel’s grant of attorney’s fees; no fraud or manifest disregard of the law; “a court must defer to arbitrators’ factual findings on attorneys’ fees even if the arbitrators do not explain a basis for the precise amount”)

Walter v. Mark Travel Corp., Case No. 6:09-cv-01019 (USDC D. Kan. Sept. 18, 2013) (confirming $1.1 million award; denying motion to vacate award; court properly compelled arbitration against assignee of signatory; request for court to revisit order compelling arbitration was untimely; arbitrators did not exceed powers, nor was there a manifest disregard of the law)

Neshgold LP v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council, Case No. 1:13-cv-02399 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2013) (denying motion to vacate; granting motion to confirm award; award finding liability against employer in labor dispute did not exceed arbitrator’s authority, nor violate public policy; award determining relief due to labor union did not reflect manifest disregard of the law)

Phoenix Bulk Carriers, Ltd. v. American Metals Trading, LLP, Case No. 1:10-cv-02963 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2013) (granting motion to confirm award in favor of carrier against iron supplier; denying motion to vacate award; panel did not act in manifest disregard of the law nor exceed its authority because award was based on panel’s interpretation of shipping contract and findings of fact)

Evident Partiality/Fraud

DuBois v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., Case No. 12-3980-cv (2d Cir. Oct. 4, 2013) (affirming judgment denying pro se motion to vacate award rejecting claim for employee discrimination; confirming the award and granting dismissal of complaint; appellant failed to present any evidence to support the claim that the award was obtained through corruption, fraud, or undue means, that arbitrator exhibited evident partiality, or that arbitrator exceeded his powers)

Stone v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Case No. 12-2827 (3d Cir. Oct. 29, 2013) (affirming order denying petition to vacate FINRA award that rejected claim for millions of dollars in losses under investment; granting cross-petition to confirm the award; no evidence of exceeding powers or evident partiality against appellant based on arbitrator’s undisclosed family relation to well-connected finance professor)

Venue

First State Insurance Co. v. National Casualty Co., Case No. 1:13-cv-00704 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2013) (transferring venue of petition to confirm the arbitration panel’s final order regarding interpretation of reinsurance contract; forum selection clause in arbitration agreement unambiguously selected venue; clause was “unambiguous and specifically excludes alternative venue for the petition to confirm the final order”)

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

In Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, No. 03-01075 (9th Cir. June 10, 2010), a $900,000 insurance bad faith case, the Ninth Circuit reversed the vacatur of an arbitration award of over $6 million, including hefty punitive damages, holding that the award was not excessive and that the vacator was not supported by the Federal Arbitration Act. Recently revisiting the issue of the proper interest to be awarded, the Ninth Circuit held that an explicit award of interest on the award’s contract damages “d[id] not foreclose … awarding interest on the remaining portions of the arbitration award.” Applying state law for post-award, pre-judgment interest and federal law for post-judgment interest, the court then ordered Lloyd’s (1) to pay interest on all of the damage awards from award date until judgment satisfaction and (2) to pay interest on post-award, pre-judgment interest from the date of the court’s opinion until satisfaction. Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, No. 2:03–01075 (9th Cir. Aug. 5, 2013).

This post written by Kyle Whitehead.

See our disclaimer.

Arbitrator Exceeding Powers

Prime United Inc., v. Sears Holdings Management Corp., Case No. 12 C 5364 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2013) (vacatur denied where arbitrator did not exceed powers in offsetting claimant’s damages by respondent’s counterclaim award)

Golden Temple of Oregon, LLC. v. Puri, Case No. 3:11-cv-01358 (D. Ore. Aug. 7, 2013) (vacatur granted, arbitrator exceeded powers or imperfectly executed them by failing to consider impact of license agreement in trademark dispute)

Manifest Disregard of Law

Physicians Insurance Capital, LLC v. Praesidium Alliance Group, LLC, Case No. 4:12-CV-1789 (N.D. Ohio July 18, 2013) (granting motion to confirm, denying vacatur, finding no manifest disregard of the law).

Arbitration Procedure

Bridgeport Ventures LLC v. PanAm Management Group, Inc., No. 11-13971 (11th Cir. July 30, 2013) (affirming decision confirming award, finding district court had diversity jurisdiction, and respondent’s petition to vacate untimely)

Pochat v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Case No. 12-22397 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2013) (granting motion to confirm, but modifying award to allow offset for counterclaim amount)

Evident Partiality

Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, Kochav S.A.R.L., No. 12-3247 (2d Cir. Aug. 30, 2013) (affirming decision to confirm award where no evident partiality, no refusal to consider material or pertinent evidence).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

An executive terminated by Doral Financial Corporation initiated an arbitration proceeding against Doral seeking severance compensation under contract. Doral counterclaimed, asserting that the former executive had breached a contractual non-competition clause by accepting employment at a competing bank. The arbitration panel decided both issues in the executive’s favor. Doral unsuccessfully petitioned the district court for vacatur. Doral appealed the denial of the petition to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In support, Doral argued that he was denied a fair hearing in contravention of the FAA because the arbitrators had refused to issue pre-hearing and hearing subpoenas to the executive’s new employer and that the arbitrators lacked the authority to grant pre-award interest. The Fifth Circuit rejected both contentions and affirmed the denial of the petition to vacate. The appellate court held that Doral had a sufficient opportunity to present evidence at the hearing, argue for the issuance of subpoenas, and, furthermore, that the panel had the authority to award pre-hearing interest. Doral Fin. Corp. v. Garcia-Velez, No. 12-1519 (5th Cir. July 31, 2013).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part a district court’s ruling that an arbitrator committed misconduct by excluding certain evidence (as reported by ReinsuranceFocus in its March 29, 2012 Arbitration Roundup). The Second Circuit Court found that the arbitrator’s exclusion of certain evidence in a commercial property dispute was within the arbitrator’s authorized discretion, and thus remanded with instructions to confirm the arbitrator’s award in that regard. The Court also affirmed other issues appealed by both parties, finding the district court properly concluded that the arbitrator acted properly in refusing to determine a purchase price, and in dismissing the defendant’s breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. LJL 33rd Street Associates, LLC v. Pitcairn Properties, Inc., Nos. 11-5425 and 12-1382 (2d Cir. July 31, 2013).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.