United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit | Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum

Posts Tagged ‘United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’

The Seventh Circuit Issues a Landmark Reinsurance Arbitration Opinion in Trustmark Ins. Co. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A.): Part II

February 24th, 2011 Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Evident Partiality, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 1 Comment »

I. Introduction

Part I (here) briefly discussed Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook’s decision in Trustmark Ins. Co. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A.), No. 09-3682, slip op. (7^th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011), and its implications on the pending Second and Fifth Circuit appeals in Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co, No. 09 Civ. 9531(SAS), 2010 WL 653481 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2010), and Dealer Computer Svcs., Inc. v. Michael Motor Co., No. H-10-2132, slip op. (S.D. Tex. December 29, 2010). This Part II examines in some detail Trustmark’s background and rationale, and Part III will focus on Trustmark’s implications on the Scandinavian Re and Dealer Computer appeals.

II. Trustmark Background

The following facts were gleaned from both the district court and Seventh Circuit opinions (the district court opinion is reported at 680 F. Supp. 2d 944 and can be found here): Continue Reading »

The Seventh Circuit Issues a Landmark Reinsurance Arbitration Opinion in Trustmark Ins. Co. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A.)

February 23rd, 2011 Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Evident Partiality, Grounds for Vacatur, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 3 Comments »

Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is not only a brilliant judge, writer and law professor, but a master of (among many other things) arbitration law. He understands better than most judges how commercial arbitration is supposed to work, what the Federal Arbitration Act is supposed to achieve, and how to implement the Act to ensure the parties get not only what they bargained for, but also the potential to realize the benefits that private, voluntary dispute resolution can offer. His arbitration-law opinions are clearly written, imbued with common and commercial sense, and seem purposely designed to make sometimes elusive concepts readily understandable to courts, arbitrators, parties and counsel. They tend to ensure that the objective, reasonable expectations of the parties are enforced, not frustrated. Continue Reading »

Second Circuit Arbitration Roundup 2011: January 1, 2011 – January 14, 2011

January 15th, 2011 Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York No Comments »

In the first two weeks of the New Year the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided two Federal Arbitration Act cases: UBS Securities, LLC v. Voegeli, No. 10-0690-cv, slip op. (2d Cir. Jan. 4, 2011) (summary order), and Dedon GmbH v. Janus et Cie, No. 10-4331-cv, slip op. (2d Cir. Jan. 6, 2011) (summary order). Both cases are summary orders, which under Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1.1, ”do not have precedential effect.” Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1.1(a).

Each involved a dispute about the existence of an arbitration agreement. In UBS Securities United States District Judge Denise L. Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a declaratory judgment that certain Swiss investors could not compel UBS to arbitrate their securities fraud claims, and permanently enjoined the Swiss investors from pursuing their claims in arbitration. Affirming the district court, the Second Circuit held that UBS satisfied the three requisites of permanent injunctive relief: 1) success on the merits; 2) lack of an adequate remedy at law; and 3) irreparable harm.

As respects success on the merits, the Court held that UBS was not obligated to arbitrate with the Swiss investors, and therefore had succeeded on the merits. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Code Rule 12200 provides that members can be compelled to arbitrate only 1) pursuant to a written agreement; or 2) where a customer requests arbitration. FINRA R. 12200. There was no written agreement to arbitrate between UBS and any of the Swiss investors and the Swiss investors were not customers of UBS. See UBS Securities, slip op. at 3.

As respects the lack of an adequate remedy at law and irreparable harm, the Court explained that under Merrill Lynch Inv. v. Optibase, Ltd., 337 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2003), “[b]eing forced to arbitrate a claim one did not agree to arbitrate constitutes an irreparable harm for which there is no remedy at law.” Slip op. at 3. Because UBS was not legally obligated to arbitrate, and because “the lack of an injunction would result in UBS effectively being required to do so, UBS satisfie[d] the ‘irreparable harm’ and ‘lack of an adequate remedy at law’ requirements for an injunction.” Slip op. at 3.

Dedon concerned the familiar rule that disputes about the existence of a contract containing an arbitration agreement must be decided by the court (absent a clear and unmistakable post-dispute submission of that issue to arbitration). Janus sought to compel arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) of an exclusive-distribution-agreement dispute, contending 1) the parties had agreed to arbitrate “as evidenced by a draft exclusive distribution agreement or the standard terms and conditions that accompanied each purchase;” and 2) Dedon had “waived its right to arbitrate through its conduct before the ICC” in London. Slip op. at 2. United States District Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion to compel and declined to stay the proceedings pending an ICC determination of the contract formation issue, holding that the dispute concerned the existence of an arbitration agreement and that Dedon had not unreservedly submitted the contract formation issue to ICC arbitration.

The Second Circuit affirmed. It said the United States Supreme Court in Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2847, 2857-58 (2010), had “reconfirm[ed]” the Second Circuit’s “well-established precedent that where a party challenges the very existence of a contract containing an arbitration clause, a court cannot compel arbitration without first resolving the issue of the contract’s existence.” Slip op. at 3 (citing Interocean Shipping Co. v. National Shipping & Trading Corp., 462 F.2d 673, 676 (2d Cir. 1972); Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 263 F.3d 26, 30 (2d Cir. 2001); Denny v. BDO Seidman LLP, 412 F.3d 58, 68 (2d Cir. 2005); Opals on Ice Lingerie v. Body Lines Inc., 320 F.3d 362, 369 (2d Cir. 2003); Sprecht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 26 (2d Cir. 2002)). Because Janus sought to compel arbitration based on a draft agreement containing an arbitration clause, the district court had to decide whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate.

The Court held that Dedon had not waived its right to court determination of the contract formation issue. The Court said that “Dedon’s submissions to the ICC were replete with statements that Dedon disputed the ICC’s jurisdiction; such repeated objections to ICC jurisdiction prevent a finding of waiver. . . .” Slip op. at 5 (citing First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 946 (1995); Opals on Ice, 320 F.3d at 368).

The Court also rejected Janus’ argument that an agreement to arbitrate “may be found in the terms and conditions that accompanied each purchase order between Dedon and Janus.” Slip op. at 5:

On their face, the terms and conditions in those purchase orders govern the particular exchange of goods occurring with that purchase order — “[a]ll contractual and extra-contractual disputes arising out of or in connection with contracts to which these International Terms and Conditions apply, shall be finally resolved by arbitration” (emphasis added) — and do not purport to create or refer to any exclusive distribution relationship between the parties, which is the sole focus of the present suit.

Janus also argues that the exclusive distribution agreement should be encompassed within the meaning of ‘pre-contractual and collateral obligations’ to the purchase orders. Janus would thus have this court find that “any dispute related to any obligation arising prior to or outside of the contract formed by each shipment of goods” is governed by the purchase orders’ terms and conditions. (emphasis in original) We decline to adopt Janus’s broad reading of that contractual language, as it ignores the plain language of the purchase order, and we agree with the district court that the terms and conditions do not provide an alternative basis for compelling arbitration.

Slip op. at 5-6 (emphasis in original).

Dedon — the party who prevailed in the district court — argued that the district court should have denied the motion to compel with prejudice. Dedon relied on Kahn Lucas Lancaster, Inc. v. Lark Int’l Ltd., 186 F.3d 210, 218 (2d Cir. 1999), partially abrogated on other grounds by Sarhank Group v. Oracle Corp., 404 F.3d 657, 660 n.2 (2d Cir. 2005), which held that under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, arbitration agreements, to be enforceable, “must be signed by the parties or contained within an exchange of letters or telegrams.” 186 F.3d at 218) (quoting Article II of the Convention). But Dedon did not raise that argument before the district court, and so the Court said “the parties will have the opportunity to argue this issue at the trial on the existence of a contact.” Slip op. at 6-7. The Court also noted that the district court may “consider what effect, if any, [the Court's] holding in Kahn Lucas has on any renewed motion to compel.” Slip op. at 7.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: (Summary orders "filed on or after January 1, 2007 may be cited in a document filed" with the Second Circuit, subject to Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 32.1.1. See Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1.1(b)(1) ; Fed. R. App. P. 32.1. "[A] party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation ‘summary order)[,]” and “must serve a copy of it on every party not represented by counsel.” Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1.1(c) & (d).]

What to Make of the Second Circuit Voiding a Class Action Waiver Under California’s Discover Bank Rule?

July 23rd, 2010 Arbitration Practice and Procedure, California State Courts, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 5 Comments »

After deciding Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds, Inc. and Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson, the United States Supreme Court left federal arbitration law at a crossroads. In both cases the Court adhered quite faithfully to its prior Federal Arbitration Act jurisprudence, under which it enforces arbitration agreements according to their terms, without regard to other considerations. In Rent-A-Center the Court implicitly reaffirmed that these pro-enforcement rules apply equally to contracts of adhesion.

We will find out whether the Court intends to continue down the same path when it decides AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion next term, a case that raises the question whether California’s Discover Bank unconscionability rule is pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act. That rule deems unconscionable under California law class-action or class-arbitration waivers where: (a) “the waiver is found in a consumer contract of adhesion in a setting in which the disputes between the contracting parties predictably involve small amounts of damages”; and (b) “it is alleged that the party with the superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money. . . .” Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 (2005) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1668).

The Discover Bank rule is grounded in a California-law principle – embodied in Cal. Civ. Code § 1668 – that “contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud. . . are against the policy of the law.” See Cal. Civ. Code § 1668. If a company is allegedly engaging in fraudulent acts designed to cheat numerous consumers out of small amounts of money, a class action or class arbitration waiver may, if enforced, effectively act as an exculpatory provision that insulates the company from the consequences of its small scale, but widespread fraud, because the individual, allegedly defrauded consumers have little incentive to pursue separate actions or arbitrations to recoup trivial amounts of damages. See Discover Bank, 36 Cal. 4th at 162-63. Any contract that had that effect – whether it is a class action waiver in an arbitration clause, an exculpatory agreement or a contract that simply forbids class actions – would be unconscionable under the rule.

In Fensterstock v. Education Finance Partners, No. 09-1562-cv, slip op. (2d Cir. July 12, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit suggested one path that the United States Supreme Court might take on Discover Bank preemption. In an interesting opinion, Senior Circuit Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse, joined by Circuit Judges José A. Cabranes and Chester J. Straub, held that the Discover Bank rule was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. According to the Second Circuit, California’s Discover Bank rule “’places arbitration agreements on the exact same footing as contracts that bar class action litigation outside the context of arbitration,’” and for that reason the rule is not preempted by the Act. Slip op. at 16-17 (quoting Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Serv., Inc., 498 F.3d 976, 990 (9^th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original)).

On first blush the Second Circuit’s decision seems reasonable. But there are some important issues lurking beneath the surface that the Supreme Court will need to address when it decides AT&T Mobility. Continue Reading »

The Second Circuit Says an Arbitration Must Commence Anew When An Arbitrator Dies — But Not When One Resigns

July 10th, 2010 Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitrator Vacancy 1 Comment »

I. Introduction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that, “absent special circumstances,” a new panel must be convened when a party-appointed arbitrator dies before the panel renders a final award. See Marine Products Export Corp. v. M.T. Globe Galaxy, 977 F.2d 66, ___ (1992). But in Insurance Co. of North Am. v. Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., ___ F.3d. ___, slip op. (2d Cir. June 23, 2010) the Court held that when a vacancy is caused by an arbitrator’s resignation, a new panel need not be convened and the trial court may either appoint an arbitrator pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 5, or direct one of the parties to do so. Continue Reading »

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

May 25th, 2010 Arbitrability, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Grounds for Vacatur, Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 6 Comments »

Part I

A. Introduction

Shortly before the United States Supreme Court decided Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., ___ U.S. ___, slip op. (April 27, 2010), we wrote about the implications the case might have on reinsurance arbitration practice. (See our post here.) But since then, you have not heard much from us, other than our brief report (here) about the Supreme Court vacating and remanding to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the American Express Merchants’ Litigation judgment for further consideration in light of Stolt-Nielsen. One — but by no means the only — reason is that after Stolt-Nielsen was decided, we wrote a comprehensive article on it, which will be published in a subscription-only publication in June.

But that article – while comprehensive in scope – is directed at folks interested in the Federal Arbitration Act in general, not necessarily those interested in reinsurance arbitration in particular. And that’s what we want to cover in this multi-part series: Stolt-Nielsen’s implications on reinsurance arbitration practice.

Stolt-Nielsen affects reinsurance arbitration in two very important ways. First, it has set a fairly liberal standard of review that now applies to commercial arbitration awards in cases where a party asserts that the arbitrators exceeded their powers under Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(4) because of the award’s outcome. That, as we shall see, has all sorts of implications for persons involved in reinsurance arbitrations.

Second, it has changed the rules applicable to consolidated-reinsurance-arbitration practice – or at least it requires a wholesale reevaluation of those rules. That, too, has a number of important implications for reinsurance-arbitration practice.

This Part I of the series explains why the standard for challenging an award based on its outcome is important in reinsurance arbitration practice. And, after briefly reviewing pre-Stolt-Nielsen law on outcome-based standards of review, it explains how Stolt-Nielsen has established for the lower courts a fairly searching standard of review. Part II (here) will delve into what the implications of that standard of review will likely be.

Part III (here) will provide the background necessary to understand how Stolt-Nielsen affects the law applicable to consolidated reinsurance arbitration. Part IV (here) will delve into the details of how Stolt-Nielsen changes – or at least requires reconsideration of – the legal status quo in this area. And Part V will discuss the implications of all of this.

We do not set out to discuss the background of Stolt-Nielsen in any detail or to provide a play-by-play of how the Court decided the case. If you are a regular reader you probably already know the background in detail, and our upcoming article does a pretty good job of mapping out the Court’s reasoning. Instead, we focus our attention on the aspects of the decision that are relevant to the two key subjects of discussion.

But before we delve into what Stolt-Nielsen has to say about the standard of review, we pause briefly to address why the standard of review applicable to an outcome-based challenge is so important in reinsurance and other forms of commercial arbitration. Continue Reading »

United States Supreme Court Vacates Judgment in American Express Merchants’ Litigation

May 12th, 2010 Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

The Supreme Court has issued a summary order in the American Express Merchants’ Litigation that suggests that it believes that Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. ___ , slip op. (2010) renders class arbitration waivers enforceable despite public policy and other challenges. Readers may recall that on May 29, 2009 American Express filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the American Express Merchants’ Litigation, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a provision in an arbitration agreement forbidding class action arbitration was invalid and unenforceable under federal public policy grounds in the circumstances presented by the case. See Re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, 554 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2009), vacated and remanded sub. nom., American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 08-1473 (May 3, 2010).

On May 3, 2010 the United States Supreme Court issued a summary order in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 08-1473 granting certiorari, summarily vacating the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and remanding it “for further consideration in light of” Stolt-Nielsen. Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor “took no part in the consideration or decision” of the petition. Italian Colors, No. 08-1473 (May 3, 2010) (summary disposition).

It will be interesting to see what the Second Circuit does with the case on remand.

Global Arbitration Review Quotes Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum’s Critical Analysis of ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. EMC Nat’l Life Co.

August 10th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2 Comments »

On April 28, 2009 we published “ReliaStar Life Insurance Co. v. EMC National Life Co.: Critical Analysis of an Important Reinsurance Arbitration Decision,” available here. On July 13, 2009 the London-based Global Arbitration Review published an interesting article about the Second Circuit’s decision in ReliaStar, which quoted from our critical analysis:

Writing shortly after the appeal court’s decision, Philip Loree Jr of New York firm Loree & Loree, said the court had “violated New York contract interpretation rules.” He said that, according to New York law, “to ascertain whether a contract is ambiguous, courts are required to focus on what is said, not what is omitted.” “Given that the pre-eminent purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act is to enforce the parties’ arbitration agreement as written, this case may be one of those rare Second Circuit decisions that warrant rehearing and reversal en banc,” he added.

You can find the article (subscription only) here: ‘Bad Faith’ Costs Decision Upheld, Global Arbitration Review, July 13, 2009, our summary of the decision here, our critical analysis here, and further commentary here. Disputing’s coverage of the case can be found here and here.

Disputing Guest Post: Class And Consolidated Arbitration Under the Federal Arbitration Act: What Issues Will The United States Supreme Court Confront in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. V. AnimalFeeds Int’l Co.?

August 6th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Guest Posts, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 4 Comments »

The Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum is delighted to guest post once again on Karl Bayer’s and Victoria VanBuren’s wonderful ADR blog, Disputing. Because Victoria and I have both written fairly extensively about Hall Street Assoc. v. Mattel, Inc, 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008), and about two of the most frequently cited cases construing Hall Street’s dictum on manifest disregard of the law — Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Bacon, 562 F.3d 349 (5^th Cir. 2009) and 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) – and because the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Stolt-Nielsen, we thought that our joint-readership might appreciate an analysis of the issues that the Supreme Court will likely address – or at least face — in that case. That’s what we have set out to do in a four-part guest post, Part I of which was published today. (Check it out here.)

As readers may already know, the issue before the United States Supreme Court is whether it is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act to impose class arbitration on parties whose arbitration agreement is silent on that point. This is the same issue that the Supreme Court set out to decide in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003), but ultimately never did because a plurality of the Court ruled that there was a disputed issue of contract interpretation as to whether the agreements in that case were, in fact, silent on class arbitration, which resulted in a remand to the arbitrator. But in Stolt-Nielsen the panel ruled, and the parties agreed, that the contracts are silent on this key point, so the Supreme Court will presumably confront the issue head on.

The Supreme Court’s decision next Term may have some important ramifications for both commercial and consumer arbitration. And soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor may provide the swing vote in the case. So for some advance coverage, tune into Disputing….

More on Stolt-Nielsen: Shouldn’t the Supreme Court Also Grant Certiorari in the American Express Merchants’ Litigation?

June 17th, 2009 Appellate Practice, Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 6 Comments »

On June 15, we reported briefly on the grant of certiorari in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009) (post available here). As readers will recall the issue before the Court is whether imposing class arbitration on a party whose arbitration clause is silent on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.

On May 29, 2009 American Express filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the American Express Merchants’ Litigation, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a provision in an arbitration agreement forbidding class action arbitration was invalid and unenforceable under the circumstances of that case. See Re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, 554 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (08-1473) (May 29, 2009). (A copy of the Second Circuit decision is here, and the Supreme Court Docket sheet is here.) Opposition papers are due June 29, 2009. Continue Reading »