Archive for the ‘Practice and Procedure’ Category

Newer Entries »

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 »

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 5 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 »

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 5 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 »

Holman Fenwick Willan and The Loree Law Firm Give London Talk on U.S. Versus English Arbitration Law

December 7th, 2009 Association of Insurance and Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC), English Law, Events, London Market, Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration Comments Off on Holman Fenwick Willan and The Loree Law Firm Give London Talk on U.S. Versus English Arbitration Law

On December 1, 2009 my friend and colleague Costas Frangeskides , a partner at Holman Fenwick Willan (“HFW” or “Holmans”), and I gave a presentation at HFW’s London offices entitled “Reinsurance Arbitration:  Approaching Things Differently Either Side of the ‘Pond.'”   The program was moderated by Holmans partner Andrew Bandurka, who, like Costas, focuses his practice on reinsurance and insurance dispute resolution.  I have known Costas and Andrew for several years as we were co-counsel in a long-running matter handled by Holmans and my former law firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP. 

The presentation was designed to provide reinsurance professionals with some insights concerning the differences between U.S. and English reinsurance arbitration practice and procedure.  The principal theme was that U.S. arbitration law is designed principally to enforce the parties’ arbitration agreement as written, placing it on the same footing as all other contracts, while English arbitration law favors party automony, but also imposes a greater number of policy-based norms regulating arbitration, which limit to some extent the parties’ ability to structure their dispute resolution procedure exactly as they see fit. Continue Reading »

Disputing Publishes Part IVB of our Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp. Guest Post

September 21st, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Guest Posts, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

On September 1, 2009 Disputing published Part IVA of our four-part guest post on 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).  In Part IVA  (here) we considered whether the question in Stolt-Nielsen  was one for the court or the arbitrators to decide, and predicted that at least five Justices of the United States Supreme Court will hold that the court must decide it.  If we are correct, then the Supreme Court will consider on a de novo basis whether the arbitration panel had the authority to impose class arbitration on the Stolt-Nielsen parties. 

Today, Disputing published Part IVB of our guest post (here) in which we consider how the Supreme Court might rule on the merits of the question.  We believe that at least five Justices will rule that the arbitrators should not, in the face of the agreements’ silence, have imposed class arbitration where, as here, there is no basis in the Federal Arbitration Act, New York state law or federal maritime law for implying consent to class arbitration.    

The Supreme Court’s decision in Stolt-Nielsen may have some important ramifications for both commercial and consumer arbitration.  So for advance coverage, tune into Disputing….

KX Reinsurance Company v. General Reinsurance Corp.: Arbitrators May Not Retain Jurisdiction After Deciding All Submitted Issues

June 28th, 2009 Association of Insurance and Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC), Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Functus Officio, Grounds for Vacatur, Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 1 Comment »

 Arbitration clauses in reinsurance contracts  typically recognize either expressly or impliedly that an arbitration proceeding has a beginning and an end.   The process usually begins with a demand for arbitration and the selection of an arbitration panel, and ends with the arbitrators holding a hearing on the merits and issuing a final award.  At that point the parties generally expect that the arbitrators will step down, and that any future dispute will be the subject of a new arbitration proceeding, perhaps with a different panel. Continue Reading »

Peter Scarpato Reports on the Association of Insurance & Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC) Dispute Resolution Procedure for Small Claims

June 27th, 2009 Association of Insurance and Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC), Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration Comments Off on Peter Scarpato Reports on the Association of Insurance & Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC) Dispute Resolution Procedure for Small Claims

The Spring 2009 issue of AIRROC Matters is out and available here:

http://www.airroc.org/files/AIRROC_Spring_2009.pdf.

Peter Scarpato (website here), Editor-in-Chief of AIRROC Matters, wrote an interesting article on AIRROC’s new Dispute Resolution Procedure for Small Claims. The procedure is designed to provide a cost-effective alternative to a full-blown reinsurance arbitration for resolving relatively small-dollar reinsurance disputes. Peter’s article, which is highly recommended, appears on page 9 of the newsletter.   (Not too long ago, Peter submitted to the Forum an excellent guest post on mediation of reinsurance disputes, introduction to the post available here, and post available here.)

I sense on the part of many some dissatisfaction with certain aspects of reinsurance arbitration practice. One popular complaint is cost — not only the cost of legal services, but arbitrator fees. Tied into cost is time — most reinsurance attorneys and arbitrators charge by the hour, and reinsurance arbitrations can be as lenghty, or nearly as lengthy as court proceedings. In some cases, they are more lengthy.

When the amount at stake is tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, then the cost/value ratio may not be that high, but when the value of the claim goes down, the cost/value ratio tends to go up (even though the costs are lower from a dollars and cents perspective).  

What AIRROC (website here) has done is devised an alternative procedure featuring expedited proceedings, a $150 per hour cap on arbitrator fees, and a single arbitrator. The procedure (which, of course, is voluntary) may well provide a useful alternative to a full-blown arbitration for claims whose dollar value is small enough to fall within its scope. 

We’d  be interested in what others think about the procedure.  In addition, we’d be interested in hearing people’s thoughts on whether the procedure might provide a workable blueprint for other industry small-claims procedures.

Hall Street Meets Pearl Street: Stolt-Nielsen and the Federal Arbitration Act’s New Section 10(a)(4)

May 29th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Grounds for Vacatur, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 11 Comments »

Introduction

Victoria VanBuren’s May 4, 2009 guest post,  Hall Street Meets S. Maestri Place: What Standards of Review will the Fifth Circuit Apply to Arbitration Awards Under FAA Section 10(a)(4) after Citigroup? (available here), looked at the scope of Section 10(a)(4) in the Fifth Circuit after Hall Street Assoc. v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008) and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Bacon, 562 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2009). Today we look at the scope of Section 10(a)(4) in the Second Circuit after Hall Street met Pearl Street in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed Mar. 26, 2009 (No. 08-1198), in which the Second Circuit said that, notwithstanding its prior case law suggesting otherwise,  “manifest disregard of the law” is not an independent basis for vacating an arbitration award foreclosed by Hall Street, but one encompassed within Section 10(a)(4)’s prohibition against arbitrators “exceed[ing] their powers.  .  .  .”  As we shall see, the Second Circuit justified that holding by taking a more expansive view of Section 10(a)(4) than it previously had, a view that may also permit challenges based on “manifest disregard of the agreement.”  Continue Reading »

Nuts & Bolts: Limitation Periods for Motions to Vacate, Modify, Correct and Confirm Domestic Arbitration Awards Falling Under Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act

May 1st, 2009 Awards, Nuts & Bolts, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Practice and Procedure Comments Off on Nuts & Bolts: Limitation Periods for Motions to Vacate, Modify, Correct and Confirm Domestic Arbitration Awards Falling Under Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act

Introduction

Today we briefly review the limitation periods applicable to motions to vacate, modify, correct and confirm arbitration awards.  Our discussion is limited to domestic awards falling solely under Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act and is not intended to be exhaustive.  In a future Nuts & Bolts feature we will discuss the rules applicable to non-domestic awards falling under Chapters 2 and 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act.   Our discussion is also limited to the rules that apply in federal courts within the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in diversity cases where the Federal Arbitration Act governs arbitration matters and New York law governs all other matters.   The rules may be interpreted differently by other circuits and, even within the Second Circuit, outcomes may vary depending on, among other things, which state’s law applies.

Limitation periods for motions to vacate or for other forms of relief under the Federal Arbitration Act and New York’s arbitration statute are construed quite strictly and practitioners should carefully abide by them.  Sometimes it is unclear whether a limitation period has accrued or been tolled.  In that event practitioners should err on the side of caution.  If there is a question whether the period for filing an application has accrued, assume that it has, and file and serve your papers within the shortest allotted period.  If there is a question whether the period has been tolled, assume that it has not, and do whatever it takes to toll it.  Continue Reading »

Newer Entries »