The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a petition to vacate a $65 million arbitration award based on the petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator’s decision was in “manifest disregard of the law.” The court explained that a “litigant seeking to vacate an arbitration award based on alleged manifest disregard of the law bears a heavy burden, as awards are vacated on grounds of manifest disregard only in those exceedingly rare instances where some egregious impropriety on the part of the arbitrator is apparent.”
A court may vacate an award for manifest disregard of the law only if the court finds both that:
- The arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether; and
- The law ignored by the arbitrators was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case.
In contrast, a court must uphold an arbitration award so long as “the arbitrator has provided even a barely colorable justification for his or her interpretation of the contract.”
Here, the court found that the arbitrator’s award was “extensively reasoned” and “correctly applied New York law.” As such, the court granted the respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award.
The court denied the respondent’s motion for attorneys’ fees, despite noting that it retained “inherent equitable powers to award attorney’s fees when the opposing counsel acts in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons,” and despite the fact that it dispatched the petitioner’s motion to vacate with relative ease. Although the petitioner’s arguments failed, the court did not find that counsel had acted “in bad faith … or for oppressive reasons.” The respondent argued that the petitioner’s motion breached clear provisions of the arbitration agreement prohibiting such filings, and it should therefore be awarded the fees it had been forced to expend. But the court noted that the agreement “effectively incorporated FAA review into [the] contract” and, further, that “courts have held provisions that prevent or discourage petitioners from challenging arbitral awards are unenforceable.”
Risen Energy Co. v. Focus Futura Holding Participações S.A., No. 1:23-cv-10993 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2024).