Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

A 1997 coal supply contract provided that "[a]ll disputes under" the agreement would be referred to arbitration in Charleston. The parties extended the 1997 Agreement until 2006, but disagree as to whether a series of emails effectuated extension through 2008. In July 2008, buyer and supplier signed a new contract with an increased price, providing for arbitration in Richmond and containing a merger clause. Buyer paid the higher price under protest, claiming that the 1997 agreement remained in effect and filed for arbitration in Charleston; supplier filed for arbitration in Richmond under the 2008 agreement. The Charleston panel found that the parties had extended the 1997 agreement and that the 2008 agreement was "a glaring breach" of the extension. The Richmond panel stayed proceedings. A Virginia district court dismissed supplier's suit. A West Virginia district court granted summary judgment for buyer. The Fourth Circuit upheld the West Virginia award under the Federal Arbitration Act 9 U.S.C. 10(a). The issue of which panel should decide the validity of the 2008 agreement was procedural, not jurisdiction, and did not require a decision in court. The Charleston panel based its jurisdiction on a plausible reading of the 1997 agreement.

This case stemmed from an Engagement Agreement entered into by petitioner, a developer and manufacturer of military technology, with respondent, an independent broker dealer, by which respondent agreed to act as petitioner's exclusive placement agent in an anticipated $20 million private offering of petitioner's securities to finance its anticipated development of a field-deployable vehicle. Petitioner subsequently appealed the district court's final order and judgment compelling arbitration of the claims of respondent before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The court held that because the parties expressly agreed to adjudicate their disputes before a court, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the district court.

This case arose out of a dispute over the construction of a yacht where the parties subsequently entered into binding arbitration pursuant to their own written agreement. At issue was whether the arbitrators "exceeded their powers" - thereby justifying vacatur of their award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 10(a)(4) - when they purportedly failed to provide a "reasoned award" as agreed to by the parties. The court concluded that three validly-appointed arbitrators oversaw a five day hearing and rendered a thoughtful, reasoned award. The court declined to narrowly interpret what constituted a reasonable award to overturn an otherwise apparently seamless procedure. The parties received precisely what they bargained for and to vacate the award and remand for an entirely new proceeding would insufficiently respect the value of the arbitration and inject the courts further into the arbitration process than Congress had mandated. Accordingly, the court held that the award should be confirmed and the judgment of the district court was reversed and remanded for reinstatement the award.

This case stemmed from an asset purchase transaction where defendants and plaintiff entered into an allocation agreement that included an arbitration clause. Defendants appealed from the district court's order enjoining arbitration and denying their motion to stay judicial proceedings under section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. 3. Defendants contended that the arbitration clause reserved the question of arbitrability for the arbitrators, and that the district court erred in determining that the dispute was not subject to arbitration. The court held that the arbitration clause in the agreement clearly and unmistakably expressed the parties' intent that the arbitrators determine questions of arbitrability, and that the district court therefore erred in permanently enjoining the arbitration and failing to stay judicial proceedings under section 3 of the FAA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the motion to stay proceedings under section 3 and dissolve the permanent injunction.

This lawsuit arose from the dispute between the parties about how much appellant was obligated to pay appellee for auto-glass goods and services rendered on behalf of appellant's insureds. Appellants appealed from the district court's orders dismissing its counterclaim that appellee violated Minnesota's anti-incentive statute, Minn. Stat. 325F.783, granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant's counterclaim for breach of contract, and denying appellant's motion to vacate the arbitration award. The court held that, given the plain language of the statute and the ordinary meaning of the terms of rebate and credit, appellee's practice did not violate the anti-incentive statute. The court also held that even if the blast faxes at issue constituted offers to enter into unilateral contracts, appellee rejected the offers when its actions failed to conform to the terms of the offer. The court further held that the arbitration award did not require reversal or new proceedings because the award was based on the finding that appellant failed to pay the competitive price standard set forth in the applicable endorsement and Minnesota law.

The union contracts state that a cost-of-living allowance will be applied to offset health insurance costs for hourly-rated employees and not be applied to hourly wage rates. The contracts state that the COLA will be equal to 1¢ per hour for each full 0.3 of a point change in the Consumer Price Index calculation. An employer was calculating the COLA on a weekly basis and maintained that the adjustment was only $0.08 per week; the union argued that the adjustment should be calculated at $3.20 per week ($0.08 x 40 hours per week). In November 2008, an arbitrator rejected management's argument that the contracts included a scrivener's error and that the COLA should be calculated on a weekly, rather than hourly basis.The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the unions. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, preempts employers' state law fraud counterclaims. An attempt to assert a federal common law "fraudulent procurement" defense was barred by the three-month limitations period for challenging the arbitrator's award.

Appellant brought an interlocutory appeal from the circuit court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The appellee argued that appellant’s appeal was untimely filed. To be timely, appellant was required to file its notice of appeal within thirty days of the order denying the motion to compel arbitration, which was entered on December 28, 2009. At issue was whether appellant’s January 4, 2010 motion to dismiss constituted a post-order motion that would have extended the time for filing the notice of the appeal under Ark. R. of App. P. Civ. 4(b). The Court concluded that because the motion substantively sought to correct procedural defects in a December 21, 2009 motion, the January 4 motion was not a new motion and was treated by the circuit court as one for reconsideration. Because it was a collateral motion, it did not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. The Court held the appellant’s notice of appeal filed on March 19, 2010 was untimely and dismissed the appeal.

In June 2009, defendant filed an arbitration demand against plaintiff alleging claims for wrongful termination and breach of contract based on plaintiff's failure to pay a performance bonus. Defendant subsequently filed a new demand for arbitration in October 2010, which included his original claims plus claims of fraud and breach of contract, after the arbitrator denied his motion to amend the original arbitration demand when he discovered evidence suggesting that plaintiff had padded estimated revenues for defendant's companies by $17 million. Plaintiff argued on appeal that the district court erred by not granting its motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order; that defendant's withdrawal from the first arbitration waived his right to a second arbitration; and that the first arbitration's October Order, denying defendant leave to amend, was an enforceable arbitration award. The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 16(b)(4), precluded the court's review of the district court's order refusing to enjoin the arbitration. The court also held that a final decision with respect to an arbitration required an official dismissal of all claims and thus, where the district court stayed proceedings in lieu of dismissal, the decision was not final. The court further concluded that an arbitration award was a final adjudication of a claim on the merits and a procedural ruling that denied leave to amend was not an award since the decision had no effect on the merits of the proposed claims. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff-Appellee Spiska Engineering, Inc. (Spiska) sued Defendant-Appellee SPM Thermo-Shield, Inc. (Thermo-Shield) for breach of contract. Following a number of proceedings and appeals relating to the arbitration of the dispute, an arbitration award was confirmed, and Spiska obtained a money judgment against Thermo-Shield. A receiver was appointed to satisfy the judgment by liquidating Thermo-Shield's assets. Appellant Joseph Raver was Thermo-Shield's president, CEO and sole shareholder. Mr. Raver was not a party to the arbitration proceedings. The receiver mailed Mr. Raver a motion and notice of its intent to sell Thermo-Shield's assets. Mr. Raver appeared at a hearing at the circuit court, and objected to the sale. The court denied Mr. Raver's objection, and approved the sale. Though injunctive relief was not an issue at the hearing, the receiver included language in his proposed findings and conclusions that permanently enjoined Mr. Raver from competing with Thermo-Shield. The court adopted the receiver's findings in its final order. Mr. Raver appealed the award of injunctive relief, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Raver to enjoin him. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin Mr. Raver from competing with Thermo-Shield. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff makes glucose monitors and other diabetes-related products that incorporate software written by defendant, under a contract that entitles it to use the software for two years after the contractâs initial term, 2006-2010, and any extension. It also gives plaintiff a right of first refusal should defendant agree to sell its stock or assets to one of plaintiffâs competitors "during the term of this Agreement." Defendant would not extend the contract after the original expiration date. Plaintiff learned that investors in defendant were negotiating to sell stock to a company that plaintiff considers a competitor. Defendant asserted that, because the transaction would not close until 2011, the right of first refusal did not apply. Plaintiff sought an injunction pending arbitration. Based on concerns about irreparable harm to each party, the district court entered an injunction to allow the sale to proceed, subject to a requirement that plaintiff be allowed to use the software through 2012; the injunction expires when the arbitrator renders a decision. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, modifying to add conditions to ensure that defendant remains a separate firm so that the transaction can be undone if the arbitrator rules in plaintiffâs favor.