Archive for the ‘Vacate Award | Existence of Arbitration Agreement’ Category

No Agreement to Arbitrate? Defending Against an Award Without a Timely FAA Motion to Vacate

August 10th, 2026 Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Applicability of the FAA, Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Risks, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Consent to Confirmation, Contract Formation, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Default Award, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Chapter 2, FAA Section 1, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 11, FAA Section 2, FAA Section 3, FAA Section 9, FAA Transportation Worker Exemption, Federal Arbitration Act Section 1, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 11, Federal Arbitration Act Section 12, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, First Principle - Consent not Coercion, Formation of Arbitration Agreement, Grounds for Modifying or Correcting Award, Grounds for Vacatur, Modify or Correct Award, Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Petition to Modify Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Section 1, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 2, Section 9, Small and Medium-Sized Business Arbitration Risk, Small Business B-2-B Arbitration, Supreme Court, Time Limit for Vacating, Modifying, or Correcting Award, United States Supreme Court, Vacate, Vacate Award | Arbitrability, Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacate Award | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Vacatur No Comments »

No Agreement: A Businessperson’s Guide to a Narrow but Important Defense to Award Confirmation

no agreementWhat if your adversary obtains a default award against your business but your business never agreed to arbitrate the dispute?

Suppose your business receives an arbitration demand, but it never signed the alleged arbitration agreement, never otherwise agreed to arbitrate, and is not bound to an arbitration agreement under generally applicable state-law contract principles.  Your business promptly objects and refuses to appear in response to the arbitration demand and does not participate in the demanded arbitration.

Undaunted, the claimant proceeds, obtains a default award, waits until the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”)’s three-month period for moving to vacate has expired, and then asks a court to confirm the award. Assume that if there were a binding arbitration agreement, then it would be governed exclusively by the FAA, not state arbitration law.

Must the Court confirm the award simply because your business failed to serve and file a Section 10(a) motion to vacate within FAA Section 12’s three-month limitation period for service of a motion to vacate under Section 10, or modify or correct the award under Section 11? Continue Reading »

Unfavorable Arbitration Award? A Businessperson’s Guide to Vacating, Modifying or Correcting FAA-Governed Awards

July 29th, 2026 Appellate Practice, Application to Vacate, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Fails to Draw Essence from the Agreement, Award Procured by Fraud and Corruption, Award Vacated, Awards, Businessperson's FAQ Guide to the Federal Arbitration Act, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Contract Interpretation, Corruption in the Arbitrators, Corruption or Undue Means, Disinterestedness, Evident Partiality, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 11, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 11, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Fraud, Fraud or Undue Means, Grounds for Modifying or Correcting Award, Grounds for Vacatur, Imperfectly Executed Award or Powers, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Manifest Disregard of the Law, Modify or Correct Award, Personal Jurisdiction, Petition to Modify Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Prejudice, Procedural Arbitrability, Procedural Misconduct, Section 10, Section 11, Small Business B-2-B Arbitration, State Arbitration Statutes, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, Vacate, Vacate Award | 10(a)(2), Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Arbitrability, Vacate Award | Attorney Fees, Vacate Award | Attorney's Fees, Vacate Award | Corruption, Vacate Award | Evident Partiality, Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacate Award | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Vacate Award | Fraud, Vacate Award | Manifest Disregard of the Law, Vacate Award | Public Policy, Vacatur No Comments »

Introduction: Can I Vacate, Modify or Correct this Award?

Vacate, Modify or Correct an Arbitration AwardYour business has just received an unfavorable arbitration award. The amount is substantial. The award seems legally wrong, factually indefensible, or procedurally unfair. Questions arise: Will a court vacate, modify or correct it? What would a court review? Where must or may the challenge be brought? How much time is available? And what information will arbitration-law counsel need? Continue Reading »

Ineffective Objections and Untimely Filings Lead to FAA Forfeiture: Sivanesan v. YBF, LLC, ___ A.D. 3d ___, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4327 (2d Dep’t 2024)

September 4th, 2024 Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitrability, Arbitrability - Nonsignatories, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Confirmed, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Confirm Award | Exceeding Powers, Confirmation of Awards, Delegation Agreements, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 11, FAA Section 9, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 11, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, First Department, First Options Reverse Presumption of Arbitrability, First Principle - Consent not Coercion, Formation of Arbitration Agreement, Grounds for Vacatur, Modify or Correct Award, New York Arbitration Law (CPLR Article 75), Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Procedural Arbitrability, Questions of Arbitrability, Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories, Second Department, Section 10, Section 11, Section 9, Service of Process, State Arbitration Law, Time Limit for Vacating, Modifying, or Correcting Award, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Arbitrability, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacate Award | Existence of Arbitration Agreement Comments Off on Ineffective Objections and Untimely Filings Lead to FAA Forfeiture: Sivanesan v. YBF, LLC, ___ A.D. 3d ___, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4327 (2d Dep’t 2024)

Objections Must be Timely and Effective in Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Including Litigation Relating to Consulting AgreementsA good chunk of FAA practice and procedure —including FAA practice and procedure in state court—involves knowing when, how, and why to make timely and effective objections and filings in arbitration enforcement litigation.  Sivanesan v. YBF, LLC, ___ A.D. 3d ___, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4327 (2d Dep’t 2024), which New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department, decided on August 28, 2024, illustrates this point well.

Appellants were not signatories to the arbitration agreement, did not agree to arbitrate any matters, and did not clearly and unmistakably agree to arbitrate questions of arbitrability. But the Court found that they participated in the arbitration without lodging adequate objections to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and did not timely file in the confirmation litigation their petition to vacate the awards at issue. Accordingly, the Appellants were—by their participation in the arbitration without effective objections to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction—deemed to have impliedly consented to arbitrate all issues before the arbitrator, including whether they were bound by the contract and arbitration agreement as successors-in-interest. Not a happy place to be.

Background

The transactions pertinent to Sivanesan began in 2008 when YBF, LLC (“YBF”) sold to Cosmetics Specialties, East LLC (“CSE”) an exclusive license to Continue Reading »

Vacating, Modifying, and Correcting Awards | Introduction | Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration Act FAQ Guide

August 3rd, 2020 Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Awards, Businessperson's FAQ Guide to the Federal Arbitration Act, Challenging Arbitration Awards, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 11, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Grounds for Modifying or Correcting Award, Grounds for Vacatur, Imperfectly Executed Award or Powers, Modify or Correct Award, Nuts & Bolts, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Practice and Procedure, Section 9, Small Business B-2-B Arbitration, Time Limit for Vacating, Modifying, or Correcting Award, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Arbitrability, Vacate Award | Attorney Fees, Vacate Award | Evident Partiality, Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacate Award | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Vacate Award | Manifest Disregard of the Law, Vacatur 2 Comments »

Introduction

Challenge Vacating Modifying CorrectingWe’ve seen how the Federal Arbitration Act authorizes confirmation and enforcement of various domestic and foreign arbitration awards falling within its scope. (See here, here, here, and here.) Let’s look at what the Federal Arbitration Act has to say about vacating, modifying, or correcting awards.

The Federal Arbitration Act also provides some limited remedies for challenging arbitration awards where a party can show certain kinds of unusual and material violations of an arbitration agreement by an arbitrator or an opposing party, or an obvious mathematical, typographical, or technical error that appears on the face of the award. These remedies are orders: (a) modifying or correcting the award under Section 11 of the Federal Arbitration Act; or (b) vacating the award in whole or in part under Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Vacating an Award under Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act

An arbitration award is effectively a contract resulting from the performance of one or more other contracts, including the pre-dispute agreement to arbitrate and the post-dispute submission to arbitration.  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 Sections 9 or 207 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 that apply 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 modest 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 »

Attorney Fees and Arbitrability Addressed by New York Appellate Court

July 30th, 2019 Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Attorney Fees and Sanctions, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Confirmed, Award Vacated, Awards, Choice-of-Law Provisions, Confirm Award | Attorney Fees, Confirm Award | Exceeding Powers, Confirm Award | Manifest Disregard of the Law, Confirmation of Awards, Contract Interpretation, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Grounds for Vacatur, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Manifest Disregard of the Law, New York Arbitration Law (CPLR Article 75), Practice and Procedure, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Arbitrability, Vacate Award | Attorney Fees, Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacate Award | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Vacate Award | Manifest Disregard of the Law, Vacatur Comments Off on Attorney Fees and Arbitrability Addressed by New York Appellate Court
Attorney Fees in Arbitration | TV

In Steyn v. CRTV, LLC (In re Steyn), 175 A.D. 3d 1 (1st Dep’t 2019), New York’s Appellate Division, First Department decided a case falling under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”) that involved two challenges: one to an award of attorney fees on manifest disregard of the law grounds, and the other to an award that a nonsignatory obtained by joining the petitioner’s counterclaim.

The Court rejected the manifest-disregard challenge to the attorney fee award in favor of a signatory to the arbitration agreement, but held that the trial court should have vacated the award made in favor of a nonsignatory (which included both damages and attorney fees).

Background: Attorney Fee and Arbitrability Challenges

Terms and Conditions

The appeal arose out of a contract “dispute between Mark Steyn, a renowned author and television and radio personality, and CRTV, an online television network, currently known as BlazeTV, which features conservative commentators such as Glenn Beck and Phil Robertson.” 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 5341, at *2. We’ll call Steyn the “Host” and CRTV the “Network.”

Continue Reading »