ARBITRATION AWARD CONFIRMATION DECISIONS
Four recent opinions dealt with arbitration award confirmation on a variety of bases.
- In Cuie v. Nordstrom, Inc., No. 07-1114 (3d Cir. Aug. 14, 2007) the court affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award. The Court characterized the arguments of the movant as being nothing more than that the arbitrator had made the wrong decision.
- In Coastal Caisson Corp. v. E. E. Cruz/NAB/Frontier-Kemper, Case No. 05-7462 (USDC S.D. N.Y. Aug. 10, 2007), the court had vacated an initial arbitration decision as being in manifest disregard of law. The court confimed a second award entered after the matter was remanded to the panel. This decision also addresses the availability of pre-judgment interest.
- In Hutchinson v. Farm Family Casualty Ins. Co., Case No. 99-2584 (USDC D. Conn. Aug. 20, 2007), the court denied a motion to vacate an award based upon the contention that the panel's decision with respect to choice of law exceeded its authority.
- In New Regency Productions, Inc. v. Nippon Herald Films, Inc., No. 05-55224 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2007), the court affimed the vacation of an award on the basis of evident partiality on the part of the arbitrator. The arbitrator took a new employment position and failed to investigate a potential conflict. The court held that he was under a duty to investigate potential conflicts and make an appropriate disclosure, and that the fact that the arbitrator did not have actual knowledge of a conflict did not excuse this breach of duty.
