Awards | Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum

Archive for the ‘Awards’ Category

Arbitration Nuts & Bolts: Vacating Arbitration Awards – Part III.A: Evident Partiality (Expectations of the Parties)

January 4th, 2010 Awards, Evident Partiality, Grounds for Vacatur, Nuts & Bolts, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Practice and Procedure 5 Comments »

Introduction

In this Part III of our Nuts & Bolts feature on vacating arbitration awards (Parts I and II here and here) we consider the second statutory ground for vacating an award under the Federal Arbitration Act: “where there was evident partiality…in the arbitrators…” 9 U.S.C. 10(a)(2). What constitutes “evident partiality” or arbitral bias has been the subject of numerous judicial decisions setting forth various standards and applying them to a wide range of fact patterns. The decisions are not easy to reconcile (some may, indeed, be irreconciliable) and generally the standards are of limited utility in practice. Matters are complicated by judicially-created rules concerning disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and the consequences that may or may not flow from a breach of those rules. To say “evident partiality” is an elusive subject understates the case. Continue Reading »

Stolt-Nielsen Oral Argument Analysis: Part III

December 23rd, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, United States Supreme Court 2 Comments »

On December 9, 2009 the United States Supreme Court held oral argument in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. granted June 15, 2009 (No. 08-1198) (oral argument transcript here). Stolt-Nielsen concerns whether class or consolidated arbitration may be imposed on parties whose contracts are silent on that point, and we have written extensively on it, including an ongoing series of guest-post articles for our friend Karl Bayer’s Disputing blog. (Posts available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

On December 16, 2009 we posted Part II of our analysis of the oral argument (Parts I, here, Part II, here). In this Part III we focus on what transpired with respect to the second of four key interrelated issues raised at oral argument and identified in Part I: What exactly did the arbitrators decide? Continue Reading »

Arbitration Nuts & Bolts: Vacating Arbitration Awards — Part II: Corruption, Fraud and Undue Means

December 19th, 2009 Awards, Grounds for Vacatur, Nuts & Bolts, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Practice and Procedure, Uncategorized 6 Comments »

In this Part II of our Nuts & Bolt feature on vacating arbitration awards (Part I is here) we briefly look at the first statutory ground for vacating an award under the Federal Arbitration Act: where “[t]he award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means. . . .” 9 U.S.C. 10(a)(1). Cases vacating awards on Section 10(a)(1) are rare, probably because the circumstances that would trigger relief are themselves rare.

Section 10(a)(1) is an excellent expression of how Section 10 is designed to provide relief in situations where putting a court’s imprimatur on an award would deprive one of the parties of the benefit of its freely-bargained-for arbitration agreement. It says that corruption, fraud, or undue means in the procurement of an award, whether perpetrated by the arbitrators or a party, spoils the award (assuming the aggrieved party timely moves to vacate). There is nothing particularly controversial about that; we suspect few would contend that parties who agree to arbitrate impliedly consent to arbitration resulting in an award procured through outright chicanery. Continue Reading »

Interesting Article on Arbitrator Power to Retain Jurisdiction

December 17th, 2009 Association of Insurance and Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC), Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group, Grounds for Vacatur, functus officio No Comments »

On June 28, 2009 we published a post concerning an article we wrote for AIRROC Matters about KX Reinsurance Co. v. General Reinsurance Corp., 08 Civ. 7807 (SAS), 2008 WL 4904882 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2008) (Scheindlin, J.), where the court held that an arbitration panel exceeded its authority when, after resolving all the issues the parties submitted, it nevertheless retained jurisdiction. A copy of our post is here.

Around the time we published that post, my friend, colleague and fellow LinkedIn Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group member, Theresa Hajost, told me that she had an article in the works that would treat in a very comprehensive fashion the issue of arbitrator authority to retain jurisdiction. (For those of you who do not already know her, Theresa is a partner at the Washington, D.C. office of Halloran & Sage LLP, where she practices insurance and reinsurance litigation and arbitration.) I thought that was a great idea and told her so.

Theresa recently published the article, Does An Arbitrator’s Retention of Jurisdiction After The Issuance of a Final Award Subject That Award To Vacatur?, in ADR Choices (Volume I Issue 10) (published by DRI). We highly recommend it as it surveys and discusses cases from all over the country on the issue of an arbitrator’s authority to retain jurisdiction, organizes those cases into helpful categories and offers insightful comments on the subject. It is an excellent resource for anyone who is interested in arbitral power, or who is confronted with a scenario where there is a question concerning an arbitration panel’s authority to remain constituted post award. You can read the article using the link Halloran & Sage has kindly provided here.

Great job, Theresa!

Stolt-Nielsen Oral Argument Analysis: Part I

December 13th, 2009 Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Practice and Procedure, United States Supreme Court 6 Comments »

On December 9, 2009 the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the one Federal Arbitration Act case it has agreed to review this Term: Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. granted June 15, 2009 (No. 08-1198) (oral argument transcript here). Stolt-Nielsen concerns whether class or consolidated arbitration may be imposed on parties whose contracts are silent on that point, and we have written extensively about the case, including a series of guest-post articles for the Disputing blog. (Posts available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

This multi-part post considers what transpired at oral argument and provides our take on it. Familiarity with the background facts is presumed and, if necessary, can be gleaned here, here, and here. Continue Reading »

Arbitration Nuts & Bolts: Vacating Arbitration Awards — It’s All in the Agreement

December 8th, 2009 Awards, Grounds for Vacatur, Nuts & Bolts, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration 2 Comments »

Part I: Introduction

An arbitration award is effectively a contract resulting from a contract. Two parties agree to appoint arbitrators, submit their dispute to arbitration and abide by the award. The parties ordinarily consent to entry of judgment on the award, and it can be confirmed under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (or a state law equivalent when the Federal Arbitration Act doesn’t apply). Alternatively it may be enforced through the plenary and summary procedures applicable to ordinary contracts (subject to any special rules governing arbitration awards).

So what happens when things go awry — or at least seem to have gone awry — and the arbitration award is or appears to be fundamentally unfair, divorced from the contract or the result of fraud, bias, or some form of prejudicial misconduct on the part of the arbitrators? Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act provides a safety net in the form of a motion or petition to vacate the award. (State arbitration statutes and law applicable in actions to enforce arbitration awards generally provide similar recourse, but our focus here is on the Federal Arbitration Act.) Continue Reading »

Global Arbitration Review Publishes Article on Hansen v. Everlast and Quotes Philip J. Loree Jr.

November 3rd, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, New York Court of Appeals, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Uncategorized, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, functus officio No Comments »

Readers may recall our recent post on the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Re Joan Hansen & Co v. Everlast World’s Boxing Headquarters Corp., ___ N.Y.3d ___, slip op. (Oct. 15, 2009), a case which demonstrates how important the parties’ submission is in determining arbitral authority. The Court held that, after an award, a party cannot reopen an arbitration proceeding to request that the arbitrators decide an issue that had not previously been submitted to the arbitrators. A copy of our post is here.

On November 2, 2009 Kyriaki Karadelis of the U.K.-based trade publication Global Arbitration Review (“GAR”) (website here) wrote what I thought was a concise and insightful article on the case. And we would have said that even if she had not quoted some of our comments in her article! But she did, and we’re flattered by that.

With Global Arbitration Review’s permission, and with the required copyright disclaimer, we have posted the article as a “Slide Share Presentation” in my LinkedIn profile, which you can view by clicking here. Also posted there (again with GAR’s permission and the required disclaimer) is a Global Arbitration Review Article on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. EMC National Life Co., ___ F.3d ___, ___ (2009) (Raggi, J.) (blogged here and here), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that an arbitration panel was authorized to award under the bad faith exception to the American Rule attorney and arbitrator fees to a ceding company in a case where the parties had agreed that “[e]ach party shall bear the expense of its own arbitrator. . . and related outside attorneys’ fees, and shall jointly and equally bear with the other party the expenses of the third arbitrator.” We reported on GAR’s article concerning ReliaStar case here, which also quotes some of our comments on that case.

We ask our readership to remember that GAR is a subscription-only publication and that it has copyrights in these posted materials. GAR has authorized us to post them online and distribute them for marketing purposes, but that authorization does not extend to others not similarly situated. Please do the right thing and respect GAR’s copyrights – GAR has to make a living just like the rest of us!

The Burlage Controversy: Did the Court Usurp Arbitral Power or did the Arbitrator Prejudice the Defendant by Excluding Evidence Material to the Controversy?

October 15th, 2009 Awards, California State Courts, Procedural Misconduct 4 Comments »

Introduction

Section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Arbitration Act authorizes courts to vacate awards “where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct. . . in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.” California’s arbitration statute says courts “shall” vacate an award where a party’s rights “were substantially prejudiced . . . by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy . . . .” Cal. Civ. Code § 1286.2(a)(5) (here).

On August 31, 2009 the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District decided Burlage v. Superior Court of Ventura Cty., ___ Cal. App. 4^th ___, slip op. (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Aug. 31, 2009), petition for rehearing granted. (A copy of the opinion is here.) At the time we viewed Burlage as an excellent and relatively easy to understand example of how courts should – and do – deal with those relatively rare situations where a party is prejudiced by an arbitrator refusing to hear evidence material to the controversy, whether under the Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(3) or a state law equivalent like California Civil Code Section 1286.2(a)(5). While we still believe that the court correctly affirmed the trial court decision vacating the arbitration award, the decision has proved to be more controversial than we initially suspected it would be. Continue Reading »

SCOTUS Denies Certiorari in All Three Federal Arbitration Act Manifest Disregard Cases Considered at Last Week’s Conference

October 5th, 2009 Awards, Grounds for Vacatur, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, United States Supreme Court No Comments »

Last week we reported that the United States Supreme Court was considering three petitions for certiorari concerning whether manifest disregard of the law remains a viable ground for vacating or modifying an arbitration award after Hall Street Assoc., L.L.C. v. Mattel , Inc, 552 U.S. ___, slip op. (March 25, 2008) (post here). Today the Court denied certiorari in all three cases: The Coffee Beanery, Ltd. v. WW, LLC, 300 Fed. Appx. 415 (6th Cir. 2008) (08-1396); Grain v. Trinity Health, 551 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2008) (08-1446); and Improv West Associates v. Comedy Club, Inc., 553 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. ) (08-1529).

Update on Federal Arbitration Act Cases Pending in the United States Supreme Court

September 29th, 2009 Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1 Comment »

Today the United States Supreme Court is considering whether to grant certiorari in three cases that concern whether manifest disregard of the law remains a viable ground for vacating or modifying an arbitration award after Hall Street Assoc., L.L.C. v. Mattel , Inc, 552 U.S. ___, slip op. (March 25, 2008). The first is The Coffee Beanery, Ltd. v. WW, LLC, 300 Fed. Appx. 415 (6th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed May 11, 2009 (08-1396), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that manifest disregard survived Hall Street as an independent ground for vacatur, and that an award in favor of a franchisor must be vacated because the arbitrator manifestly disregarded Maryland franchise law requiring franchisors to disclose certain types of prior criminal convictions. The Sixth Circuit also found that the franchisor’s failure to disclose the conviction vitiated the arbitration clause contained in the franchise contract, a holding that seems questionable in light of Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 449 (2006).

The second case is Grain v. Trinity Health, 551 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed May 19, 2009 (08-1446), in which the Sixth Circuit held that the arbitrators’ failure to enforce the parties’ choice of Michigan law as respects the issue of costs and attorney fees — characterized as manifest disregard of the law — was not a valid ground for modifying an arbitration award under Federal Arbitration Act Section 11.

The third is Improv West Associates v. Comedy Club, Inc., 553 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. ), petition for cert. filed June 8, 2009 (08-1529), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that manifest disregard of the law remained viable after Hall Street because it fell within the ambit of Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(4), and vacated an award on the ground that the arbitrator’s interpretation of applicable state law was “fundamentally incorrect,” albeit made in good faith.

The briefs in support of and in opposition to both petitions, as well as the lower court decisions, can be obtained by visiting one of our favorite blogs, the SCOTUSblog, here and here. It will be interesting to see whether the United States Supreme Court decides to grant certiorari in any or all of these cases.

On a related matter, Petitioners’ and amici merits briefs in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. granted June 15, 2009 (No. 08-1198) can be accessed via the American Bar Association’s website, here. Respondent’s briefs are due later in October and oral argument has been scheduled for December 9, 2009. (See Russ Kunkel’s LawMemo Arbitration Blog here). We have written extensively on Stolt-Nielsen, which concerns whether class arbitration may be imposed on parties whose contracts are silent on that point. (Posts available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

Finally, we are following the petition for certiorari filed in the American Express Merchants’ Litigation (blogged here), which has not yet come up for conference. The Amex Merchants’ Litigation concerns whether class arbitration waivers comport with federal antitrust policy.

We shall keep readers apprised of developments as and when they occur. . . .