Reinsurance Focus

We have previously reported on the ongoing litigation between Legacy Trading Co. and defendant Robert Hoffman. Recently, Legacy Trading appealed to the Tenth Circuit the District Court’s order denying their motion to vacate an arbitration award and granting Hoffman’s motion for confirmation. Hoffman cross appealed the denial of his request for attorneys’ fees. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the order confirming the award, dismissing Legacy Trading’s frivolous argument that it had not agreed to arbitrate. The Court noted that as a member of NASD, Legacy Trading was subject to arbitration and, in addition, it had signed an agreement in this case agreeing to arbitration. The Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the arbitrators were evidently partial, that Legacy Trading was denied a fair hearing, or that the arbitrators had manifestly disregarded the law. On the last point, the Court noted that Legacy Trading had failed to include the entire transcript as evidence of manifest disregard, and thus had failed to carry the burden of persuasion. The Court also rejected Legacy Trading and co-plaintiff Mark Uselton’s public policy argument.

Regarding Hoffman’s cross appeal, the Tenth Circuit ruled that because the District Court had not explained its decision to deny the request for fees, the issue should be reversed and remanded. Legacy Trading Co. Ltd. v. Hoffman, Case No. 09-6007 (10th Cir. Jan. 29, 2010).

This post written by John Black.