main image

Posts Tagged ‘Banco de Seguros del Estado v. Mutual Marine Office’

SCA v. Armstrong: Anatomy of the Lance Armstrong Arbitration Award—Part III.B.4: The Panel’s Remedial Authority

May 20th, 2015 Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Provider Rules, Attorney Fees and Sanctions, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards Comments Off on SCA v. Armstrong: Anatomy of the Lance Armstrong Arbitration Award—Part III.B.4: The Panel’s Remedial Authority

Introduction: Remedial Powers of Arbitrators under the Federal Arbitration Act


The third issue the Armstrong Panel addressed was: “What jurisdiction, if any, does this Tribunal have to award sanctions?” This was a question of the Panel’s remedial authority — assuming the Panel had the authority to decide the dispute, what remedies were the arbitrators authorized to award?

The Panel determined that Armstrong had committed fraud and testified falsely, and had by those unlawful means procured the Settlement Agreement and Consent Award. All else equal, had the Armstrong Parties testified truthfully, and been prepared to do so from the outset of the dispute, then presumably the Armstrong Parties: (a) would not have claimed the $7.5 million in prize money; or (b) would have submitted to arbitration the question whether the Armstrong Parties’ use of performance enhancing drugs barred them from recovering the prize money under their contracts with the SCA Parties. If the Armstrong Parties chose option (a) above, then the SCA Parties would not have incurred any time or money costs dealing with the Armstrong Parties’ Claims. Had the Armstrong Parties chosen option (b), then the SCA Parties’ time and money costs would likely have been pretty modest, and in any event, nowhere near what they turned out to be.

Given that the Panel identified a breach of duty that caused harm, the next question from the standpoint of the merits was: what (if anything) should be the remedy? The SCA parties apparently argued that the Panel should grant a sanctions remedy, which the Panel apparently viewed as serving both deterrent and compensatory purposes.

Where, as here, an arbitration panel that has the authority to resolve a dispute is considering what relief (if any) it should award to the prevailing party, that raises a remedial authority question: what remedies have the parties authorized the Panel to award? Under a broad arbitration agreement, remedial authority questions are typically not controversial, for parties ordinarily tend to seek standard remedies: damages, declaratory relief or traditional forms of equitable relief (such as rescission or reformation).  One party asks for the relief in its submission in the arbitrators and the other party doesn’t object because there is no reason to do so.

But where other non-standard forms of relief are requested—and particularly where the parties’ contract express a clear intent to limit remedial powers—then remedial authority can become more controversial.

The Armstrong Arbitration involved a claim for sanctions arising in unusual circumstances. While the parties’ contracts did not purport to limit the Panel’s remedial authority, the Armstrong Parties challenged the Panel’s authority to award sanctions and the Panel addressed that challenge in a reasoned award.

This segment of our Armstrong-Award Anatomy series focuses exclusively on whether the Panel had the authority to make an award of sanctions. It reviews the general rules concerning arbitrator remedial authority, considers the standard of review that a court reviewing the award will presumably apply if the Armstrong Parties contest the Panel’s remedial authority in court, discusses the Panel’s analysis and conclusions concerning sanctions and explains why we think it unlikely that a court will find that the Panel exceeded its authority by making an award of sanctions.

Our next Armstrong Arbitration Award Anatomy segment will address the related—but analytically distinct—issue whether the Panel had the authority to make a $10,000,000.00 sanctions award in the circumstances.

General Rules Governing Arbitrator Remedial Authority

yay-974131-e1425250054241As a general rule, where the parties have agreed to require each other to submit to arbitration a broad range of a disputes that might arise out of or relate to their legal relationship, the law presumes they intended to confer equally broad remedial powers on the arbitrators. See, e.g., ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. EMC Nat’l Life Co., 564 F.3d 81, 86-87 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing cases). Sometimes, arbitration-provider rules—such as Rule 47 of the American Arbitration Association Commercial Rules (formerly Rule 43)—expressly confer broad remedial authority on arbitrators. Rule 47, for example, states: Continue Reading »

Can a Court Order a Party not to Request in Arbitration a Remedy the Arbitrator may not have the Authority to Grant?

May 10th, 2015 Arbitrability, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Courts, Injunctions in Aid of Arbitration, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Comments Off on Can a Court Order a Party not to Request in Arbitration a Remedy the Arbitrator may not have the Authority to Grant?

Can a Court Forbid a Party from Requesting in Arbitration a Remedy the Arbitrator may not Have the Authority to Grant?

Benihana Case: Introduction


In appropriate circumstances, Courts can vacate under Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(4) an award that does not draw its essence from the parties’ agreement but instead was based on the arbitrators’ own notions of economic justice.

In Benihana, Inc. v. Benihana of Tokyo, LLC, ___ F.3d ___, No. 14-841, slip op. (2d Cir. April 28, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit  was faced with a different issue: whether before an award was made a court can enjoin a party from asking the arbitrators to award it a remedy that the parties’ contract does not authorize them to award.

The Court quite correctly ruled that district  courts do not  have the discretion to grant such an injunction because, among other things, doing so would violate the Federal Arbitration Act by infringing upon the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. In so holding the court was able to clarify a misunderstanding about arbitrability that is all too common among lay persons, a number of lawyers and apparently even the occasional judge.

Benihana Case: Background


Benihana, Inc. (“Benihana U.S.”) and Beni-Hana of Toky (“Benihana Tokyo”)  were parties to a 1995 licensing agreement, which granted Benihana Tokyo the right to open Benihana restaurants in Hawaii. The agreement contained a New York choice of law clause.

yay-1557903The licensing agreement was designed, among other things, to require Benihana of Tokyo’s Hawaii restaurants to conform with Benihana standards, including those applicable to the menu and the use of Benihana trademarks. The Agreement, for example, required written approval by Benihana U.S. of “products and services” to be sold by Beni-Hana Tokyo, and stipulated that approval would “not be unreasonably withheld.”

The licensing agreement’s termination provisions provided that Benihana U.S. could terminate Benihana Tokyo’s license for good cause in the event of a “violation of ‘any substantial term or condition of th[e] Agrement [that Benihana Tokyo] fails to cure. .  . within thirty days after written notice from [Benihana U.S.].” Three cured defaults within a 12 month period also constituted good cause.

The Agreement contemplated both arbitration and injunctions in aid of arbitration (i.e., to preserve the status quo) as respects “violation of certain articles— including Article 5.2 restricting Benihana of Tokyo’s trademark use and Article 8.1(c) restricting the items Benihana of Tokyo may advertise or sell.  .  .  .” The injunctive-relief provisions specified that violations of those articles “would result in irreparable injury to [Benihana U.S.] for which no adequate remedy at law may be available. . . .”  They also  stipulated that Benihana U.S. “may obtain ‘an injunction against [such] violation . . . without the necessity of showing actual or threatened damage.'”

yay-1916763-digitalArticle 13 of the Agreement provided for arbitration in two types of situations. First, disputes about termination of the Agreement were subject to mandatory arbitration:

If this Agreement shall be terminated by [Benihana U.S.] and [Benihana of Tokyo] shall dispute [Benihana U.S.’s] right of termination, or the reasonableness thereof, the dispute shall be settled by arbitration at the main office of the AmericanArbitration Association in the City of New York in accordance with the rules of said association and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. The arbitration panel shall consist of three (3) members, one (1) of whom shall be chosen by [Benihana U.S.], and (1) by [Benihana Tokyo] and the other by the two (2) so chosen.

Slip op. at 7.

Second, the agreement contained a broad, catchall provision that provided for arbitration of “any other dispute” at the election of either party:

In the event that any other dispute arises between the parties hereto in connection with the terms or provisions of this Agreement, either party by written notice to the other party may elect to submit the dispute to binding arbitration in accordance with the foregoing procedure. Such right shall not be exclusive of any other rights which a party may have to pursue a course of legal action in an appropriate forum. Enforcement of any arbitration  award, decision or order may be sought in any court having competent jurisdiction.

Slip op. at 7.

yay-10331162-digitalDuring the period 1995 until 2012 the parties enjoyed an amicable contractual relationship, but after a 2012 sale of Benihana U.S. to Angelo Gordon & Co., disputes started to arise. In May 2013 Benihana U.S., now under new ownership, notified Benihana Tokyo that: (a) Benihana U.S. had learned that Benihana Tokyo was selling “BeniBurgers” (a type of hamburger) at its Honolulu restaurant; (b) the licensing agreement required that new menu items be approved by Benihana U.S.; and (c) Benihana U.S. had not approved the sale of “BeniBurgers.” Benihana U.S. demanded that Benihana Tokyo remove BeniBurgers from the menu.

Benihana Tokyo did not remove BeniBurgers from the menu, which prompted Benihana U.S. to declare a breach of contract and notify Benihana Tokyo that it had 30 days to cure. Benihana U.S. extended the cure period twice, and Benihana Tokyo commenced  an action in New York State Supreme Court for an injunction staying the cure period pending arbitration of the parties’ dispute about BeniBurgers. Continue Reading »

Pine Top Receivables, LLC v. Banco De Seguros Del Estado:  The Seventh Circuit Exorcises some Ghosts of Reinsurance Past, but has it Summoned an Erie Ghost of Reinsurance Future?

November 22nd, 2014 Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Practice, Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Collateral Requirements for Unauthorized Reinsurance, Contract Interpretation, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, FAA Chapter 3, Federal Courts, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Insolvency Proceedings, Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, McCarran-Ferguson Act, New York Convention, Panama Convention, Pre-Answer Security, Reinsurance Arbitration, Reinsurance Claims, Reinsurance Litigation, Security Requirements, Unauthorized Reinsurance, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on Pine Top Receivables, LLC v. Banco De Seguros Del Estado:  The Seventh Circuit Exorcises some Ghosts of Reinsurance Past, but has it Summoned an Erie Ghost of Reinsurance Future?

Part II: What Transpired in Pine Top?


In our last post on  Pine Top Receivables, LLC v. Banco De Seguros Del Estado, ___ F.3d ___, Nos. 13-1364/2331, slip op. (7th Cir. Nov. 7, 2014) (per curiam) (here), we offered our take on the case and what it might mean, particularly as respects the Court’s suggestion that state pre-answer security statutes may be procedural under the Erie doctrine, possibly inconsistent with federal procedural law and thus inapplicable in diversity cases. Now let’s take a closer look at what transpired in Pine Top, for even apart from the Court’s allusion to a possible Erie doctrine issue (our Erie ghost of reinsurance future), it involved a number of classic reinsurance issues (our ghosts of reinsurance past), as well as a notable appellate jurisdiction issue and the question whether the assignee of the insolvent ceding company acquired the right to demand arbitration against the reinsurer.  Continue Reading »