Courts continue strict approach to confirmation of arbitration awards
Two recent opinions continued the trend of courts confirming arbitration awards over a variety of objections:
- In Kuest v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., (USDC W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2006), an NASD arbitration award was confirmed over contentions that it was irrational and exhibited a manifest disregard of law. The Court found that the Petition to Vacate the award merely complained about evidence rulings by the Arbitration Panel and its weighing of the evidence.
- In Millenium Validation Services, Inc. v. Thompson, (USDC D. Del. Nov. 3, 2006), an arbitration award relating to a shareholder agreement was confirmed, rejecting five grounds proposed for the vacation of the award: (1) the arbitrator exceeded his authority by rejecting the “binding valuation” of the objector's accountant; (2) the award contained “evident material miscalculation of figures;” (3) the arbitrator refused to consider pertinent evidence, amounting to a manifest disregard of law; (4) the arbitrator refused to consider an alleged breach of a contractual provision; and (5) the arbitrator exceeded his authority with respect to attorneys' fees and costs.
These opinions are further examples of courts viewing such complaints as nothing more than impermissible re-argument of the merits of the arbitration under different guises.
