In a non-insurance arbitration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has affirmed the confirmation of an arbitration award, rejecting an argument that the arbitrator had acted in manifest disregard of law. The Court found that while the arbitrator's decision on liability “may be a close call,” it did not constitute manifest disregard of law. The Court also rejected an argument by a party against which an award had been entered that it was not a proper party to the arbitration, since it was not a party to the underlying note. This argument was rejected, in part because the party had vigorously participated in the arbitration without making any objection to its being named as a party. Hicks v. Bank of America, Case No. 05-1399 (10th Cir. Feb. 21, 2007).
Arbitration / Court Decisions
Securities fraud putative class action against MBIA dismissed
Having settled with the SEC over charges relating to allegedly fraudulent reinsurance transactions, MBIA may be finding closure on the civil side of that problem. Relying on a 1991 Supreme Court decision stating that litigation under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 must be commenced “within one year after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation and within three years after such a violation,” a District Court has dismiss a securities fraud putative class action against MBIA as time-barred. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities fraud class action alleging that MBIA’s financial statements were materially misstated because MBIA improperly treated a series of transactions in 1998 as reinsurance agreements, and the associated proceeds as income, although they were in fact disguised loans. In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-3514 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2007).
District Court vacates attorney fee award portion of arbitration award
Following arbitration of a dispute between parties to a coinsurance arrangement, an arbitration panel awarded attorney and arbitrator fees and costs to one party. A District Court confirmed the award, but vacated the award of fees and costs, which exceeded three million dollars, concluding that the award exceeded the arbitrators’ powers. The court relied on the terms of the coinsurance agreements, which expressly stated that “[e]ach party shall bear the expense of its own arbitrator…and related outside attorneys’ fees.” The court held that despite the breadth of the agreements to arbitrate, these provisions made clear that the arbitrators had no authority to award outside attorneys’ fees. The Court's decision is reflected in an Order, and a Judgment, with additional information about the case available in Memoranda filed by Reliastar and EMC National Life. Reliastar Life Insurance Company of New York v. EMC National Life Insurance Company, No. 06-cv-10186 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2007).
Zurich companies settle insurance bid-rigging claims
A group of companies has settled civil and regulatory issues relating to alleged bid rigging in the sale of insurance. A District Court has approved a settlement whereby Zurich Financial Services, Zurich American Insurance Company, Steadfast Insurance Company, Fidelity and Deposit of Maryland, Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company, Empire Indemnity Insurance Company and Assurance Company of America have settled all claims in a pending MDL action, and also settled with numerous state attorneys general and insurance departments. In re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 04-5184/MDL No. 1663 (USDC D.N.J. Feb. 16, 2007). Details of the settlement, which will cost the companies over $200 million, may be found in a Memorandum In Support of a motion seeking approval of the settlement.
Tenth Circuit adopts arbitral immunity doctrine
In an appeal from an award in an NASD-sponsored arbitration, the Tenth Circuit has joined virtually all other Circuits in recognizing that arbitrators, arbitral forums and arbitral sponsors are immune from liability for actions taken in connection with administering arbitration. Pfannenstiel v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Case No. 04-1274 (10th Cir. Feb. 20, 2007).