Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Second Circuit Rejects Application of the Functus Officio Doctrine and Affirms District Court’s Order Denying Petition To Vacate Arbitration Award and Granting Cross-Petition to Confirm Award

by

In Smarter Tools, Inc., v. Chongqing Seni Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd., et al., the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Smarter Tools, Inc.’s (STI) petition to vacate an arbitration award and granting Chongqing Seni Import & Export Trade Co. Inc. and Chongqing AM Pride Power and Machinery Co., Ltd.’s (collectively, SENCI) cross-petition to confirm the award.

STI is engaged in the business of buying and selling tools and power products. SENCI produces and sells gas-powered generators. STI and SENCI entered into contracts for STI’s purchase of thousands of generators from SENCI. The purchase orders for the generators included an arbitration provision “providing that any dispute arising from the contracts would be resolved by arbitration, to be conducted in New York City under the International Commercial Dispute Resolution Procedure of the American Arbitration Association.” After disputes arose between the parties regarding the generators, SENCI initiated arbitration to collect amounts due from STI. STI filed a counterclaim contending that several of the generators were defective and failed to comply with applicable state and federal regulations, resulting in damages to STI. The parties agreed the arbitrator should provide a reasoned award. After the hearing, the arbitrator rendered an award, which (i) included a brief description of the proceedings, (ii) excluded the testimony of STI’s expert witness and five exhibits related to that testimony, and (iii) included two findings. The arbitrator awarded SENCI approximately $2.4 million and denied all of STI’s claims against SENCI.

STI filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award contending it was not a “reasoned award” as required, and that the arbitrator “manifestly disregarded the law.” SENCI filed a cross-petition to confirm the award. The district court found the arbitrator’s award did “‘not meet the standard for a reasoned award because it contains no rationale for rejecting STI’s claims’” and “‘the arbitrator exceeded his authority in issuing an award that does not meet the standard of a reasoned opinion.’” The district court remanded the matter to the arbitrator for clarification of his findings. The arbitrator then issued a final amended award providing the same relief for the parties, but also including a further explanation of why STI’s counterclaims failed. STI again moved to vacate the amended award, and SENCI moved to confirm the award. The district court found the arbitrator’s amended award provided sufficient details to constitute a reasoned award and granted SENCI’s cross-petition to confirm the award and denied STI’s petition to vacate.

In affirming the district court’s order, the Second Circuit first noted the opinion in Porzio v. Dresdner, Kleinwort, Benso, N. Am., LLC, 497 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2007) confirming the “extremely deferential standard of review” that should be applied in reviewing arbitral awards “[t]o encourage and support the use of arbitration by consenting parties.” The court noted “‘[o]nly a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached by the arbitrators is necessary to confirm the award.’” The court then rejected STI’s argument that the doctrine of functus officio barred the district court from remanding the matter to an arbitrator for a reasoned award. The doctrine of functus officio provides “once arbitrators have fully exercised their authority to adjudicate the issues submitted to them, their authority over those questions is ended, and the arbitrators have no further authority, absent agreement by the parities, to redetermine those issues”. The court found “where, as here, a district court determines that the arbitrator failed to produce an award in the form agreed to by the parties, remand for a properly conformed order is a permissible choice. It simply makes no sense to redo an entire arbitration proceeding over an error in the form of the award issued after the hearing.”

The court also rejected STI’s argument that vacatur was mandated under the FAA. The court held that “applying the strong presumption in favor of enforcing an arbitration award, the arbitrator’s failure to render a reasoned award does not fall within a narrow reading of Section 10(a)(4) and did not require vacatur of the original award.” The court found “where, as here, the parties agree that the arbitrator will produce a reasoned award, the failure to provide one renders the award ‘imperfect in matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy.’ 9 U.S.C. §11(c).” Finally, the court rejected STI’s claim that the district court also erred in not finding the arbitrator acted in “manifest disregard of the law” finding those claims groundless.

Smarter Tools, Inc., v. Chongqing Seni Import & Export Trade Co., Inc., et al., No. 21-724 (2d Cir. Jan. 17, 2023)

D.C. Circuit Affirms Denial of Stay of International Arbitration Award Enforcement

by

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the denial of a stay regarding the enforcement of an international arbitration award under the New York Convention.

In 2010, the country of Moldova allegedly failed to pay energy bills to Energoalliance, a Ukrainian company. LLC SPC Stileks acquired Energoalliance’s claim against Moldova and initiated arbitration in Europe. In 2013, an arbitration tribunal in Paris ruled against Moldova and Stileks moved to confirm the award in the United States under the New York Convention.

Proceedings in Europe continued while Stileks’ U.S. motion to confirm was litigated. The decision in Stileks’ favor was reversed by a French court, then reinstated, then appealed again. That appeal remains pending and further proceedings in Europe are likely after the appeal.

In the proceedings in the United States, the district court confirmed Stileks’ award and the D.C. Circuit affirmed (except for an issue regarding the currency of the judgment). Moldova then moved for a stay of proceedings in light of the uncertainty regarding the underlying proceedings in Europe. The district court denied the stay and Moldova appealed.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed, noting that the two most important factors in its decision were supporting “the expeditious resolution of disputes and the avoidance of protracted and expensive litigation” and “the status of the foreign proceedings and the estimated time for those proceedings to be resolved.” Both of those factors weighed against a stay. The underlying dispute had been ongoing for more than a decade and there was no immediate timeline for an end to the European actions.

The D.C. Circuit also affirmed — on the alternate basis — that the law of the case doctrine precluded a stay because the D.C. Circuit had denied a stay in a prior ruling upholding the award.

LLC SPC Stileks v. The Republic of Moldova, No. 21-7141 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 21, 2022).

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Notes That Review of Arbitration Awards Under the MPPAA is “Notably Less Deferential” than under the FAA

by

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s order confirming an arbitration award under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, noting in the process that judicial review of such awards is “notably less deferential” than review of awards pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act.

The MPPAA imposes liability on employers who withdraw — partially or completely — from multiemployer pension funds. MNG Enterprises, Inc. withdrew in 2014 from GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund, a multiemployer pension plan. The MPPAA imposes “withdrawal liability” on employers that withdraw from pension plans to cover the employer’s proportionate share of the plan’s unfunded vested benefits and to ensure that such pension plans remain viable.  After MNG’s withdrawal from the fund, GCIU’s actuary calculated its withdrawal liability. MNG disputed the actuary’s calculation and initiated arbitration pursuant to the dispute resolution requirements of the MPPAA.

The arbitrator agreed with MNG on two points but ruled for GCIU on the third. Both parties sought judicial review in the federal court for the Central District of California. The district court affirmed the arbitration award except for the interest rate it utilized, because the judge believed the arbitrator made a typographical error. Both parties appealed again, this time to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Ninth Circuit stated that “the standard of review for MPPAA arbitrations is notably less deferential than under the Federal Arbitration Act.” The court presumed that findings of fact made by the arbitrator were correct unless rebutted by a clear preponderance of the evidence, and further, reviewed the arbitrator’s conclusions of law de novo and applications of equitable relief for an abuse of discretion. Applying these standards of review, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s rulings. The court remanded for further consideration as to whether MNG, as a purchaser of earlier withdrawn participants in the GCIU, could have been liable as a successor as a matter of equity, and whether GCIU correctly applied the contribution histories at the time of the relevant asset sales.

GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund v. MNG Enterprises, Inc, Nos. 21-55864, 21-55923 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2022).

Georgia Court of Appeals Confirms Arbitration Award Holding That Arbitrator Did Not Manifestly Disregard Law or Overstep Authority

by

Concluding that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard contract law or overstep his authority, the Georgia Court of Appeals confirmed the arbitrator’s award and remanded the matter for consideration of an award of attorneys’ fees and post-award interest.

Claimants Southern Mountain Adventures LLC and Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd. entered into an arbitration agreement with Interstate National Dealer Services Inc. (INDS) to resolve their claims that INDS overcharged Southern Mountain Adventures. The limited facts included in the court’s decision confirm that the dispute between the claimants and INDS involved “payments collected by INDS pursuant to motorsport vehicle service contracts sold to customers by [Southern Mountain Adventures] and administered by INDS” and claims by the claimants that “INDS overcharged [Southern Mountain Adventures].” After the arbitrator found in favor of the claimants, INDS challenged the confirmation of the arbitration award. The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the confirmation of the award, finding that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law. The Court of Appeals based its decision, in part, on the finding that “INDS charged an amount of money agreed to by the parties in a Rate Card” and that “the parties did not depart from the Rate Card structure.” Thereafter, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the holding of the Court of Appeals, holding that the arbitrator had not manifestly disregarded the law. The Supreme Court noted that “an arbitrator who incorrectly interprets the law has not manifestly disregarded it. The arbitrator has simply made a legal mistake,” and the legal standard for manifestly disregarding the law has not been met. The Supreme Court then remanded the case to the Court of Appeals.

On remand, the Court of Appeals confirmed the arbitrator’s award, concluding that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard contract law. The court adopted the reasoning of the Supreme Court that the arbitrator had fashioned a remedy that he deemed “just and equitable within the scope of the agreements of the parties.” The Court of Appeals also considered INDS’ argument that the arbitrator overstepped his authority under Georgia’s arbitration statute, concluding that overstepping “like the other grounds for vacating arbitration awards is very limited in scope” and involves “addressing issues not properly before the arbitrator,” which the court concluded did not occur in this case. Finally, the court addressed the claimants’ argument that they were entitled to attorneys’ fees and post-award interest. The court held that “[b]ecause the court never addressed these issues, we remand for consideration of the appropriateness of awarding attorney fees arising out of the arbitration requested in the Claimant’s motion to confirm the award, attorney fees arising out of collection efforts as stated in the arbitration award, and post-award interest as stated in the arbitration award.”

Adventure Motor Sports Reinsurance, Ltd. v. Interstate National Dealer Services, Inc., No. A20A0036, A20A0037 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2022).

Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim of “Implicit Vacatur” of Arbitration Award and Affirms District Court’s Entry of Preliminary Injunction

by

This case involves a dispute concerning the use of the name of a family business. The Grewal family managed real estate companies using the name “Singh” in the company name, and the companies obtained a trademark on their name. A member of the family, referred to in the opinion as Darshan, left the business and formed new companies that also used the Singh name. One of the original companies sued the new Singh companies alleging that the new companies infringed the Singh trademark. The dispute was submitted to arbitration where the original Singh companies prevailed. The arbitrator’s award prohibited the new companies from using the name Singh “as the only identifying proper noun used to describe their business.” The district court confirmed the arbitrator’s award and entered a permanent injunction. Thereafter, the new Singh companies “rebranded” and added “Michigan” to their company names. The original Singh companies filed a new suit requesting that the district court hold Darshan in contempt and modify the prior permanent injunction to prohibit the new companies from adding “Michigan” to their names. Before addressing those claims, the district court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining Darshan from “any use of, or Promotion with the term ‘Singh,’” including “the ‘Singh Michigan’ names.”

Darshan appealed the preliminary injunction in the new suit, contending that the preliminary injunction “implicitly vacated the arbitration award.” The Sixth Circuit rejected the argument, concluding that “[c]ourts use preliminary injunctions as temporary devices to maintain the status quo while they adjudicate disputes.” The court noted that “the district court entered the preliminary injunction while it considered how the arbitration award applied to Darshan’s new act of alleged infringement.” With regard to Darshan’s argument that the preliminary injunction “implicitly vacated” the arbitration award, the Sixth Circuit explained that “implicit vacatur can occur when a district court rules on a motion to confirm, modify, or vacate an arbitration award.” The court then ruled that because the district court had yet to rule on the original Singh companies’ motion to modify the earlier award, no implicit vacatur had occurred. The court also rejected Darshan’s argument that the arbitration confirmation action resolved all issues and claims in the new action and that “claim and issue preclusion” applied. The court held that claim and issue preclusion “apply to claims and arguments that were resolved before,” which it concluded did not apply in this case. Finally, the court rejected Darshan’s argument that “law of the case precludes us from reconsidering issues decided in the previous action,” finding that “[t]his is a separate suit, arising out of Darshan’s actions after the arbitration award was confirmed. So law of the case does not apply.” The Sixth Court affirmed the district court’s rulings.

Singh Management Co. v. Singh Michigan Homes, LLC, No. 21-1826 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2022).