New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Arbitration — Evident Partiality and Undue Means as Grounds to Vacate Arbitration Award

Download PDF

NGC Network Asia, LLC v. Pac Pacific Group Int’l, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2802 (2d Cir. Feb. 11, 2013):

a. Evident Partiality

PPGI insists that the District Court should have vacated the arbitration award because the arbitrator exhibited "evident partiality." An arbitrator is disqualified under that standard "only when a reasonable person, considering all of the circumstances, 'would have to conclude' that an arbitrator was partial to one side." Applied Indus. Materials Corp. v. Ovalar Makine Ticaret Ve Sanayi, A.S., 492 F.3d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 2007) (emphasis added) (quoting Morelite Constr. Corp. v. N.Y.C. Dist. Council Carpenters Benefit Funds, 748 F.2d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 1984)). We use a pragmatic case-by-case approach to determine whether that standard is met, "remain[ing] cognizant of peculiar commercial practices and factual variances." Morelite, 748 F.2d at 84.

Here, the alleged conflict, which was disclosed by the arbitrator at the time of his selection, involves a business relationship between Arent Fox LLP, where the arbitrator was a managing partner, and National Geographic Society ("National Geographic"), which had an indirect, non-controlling ownership interest in Petitioner-Appellee NGC Network Asia, LLC ("NGC"). Because the arbitrator properly complied with his disclosure obligations, "[t]he concern . . . that nondisclosure might create an appearance of bias or even be evidence of bias is simply not present in this case". Lucent Techs. Inc. v. Tatung Co., 379 F.3d 24, 29 (2d Cir. 2004). In addition, the District Court found that none of the parties to the arbitration were clients of Arent Fox, National Geographic was not a party to the contract at issue or a witness in the arbitration proceedings, no discovery was sought from National Geographic, and National Geographic had no management rights or control over NGC. None of these findings is clearly erroneous, and we cannot say that the relationship is one that would compel a reasonable person to conclude that the arbitrator was partial. See id. at 31-32 (no evident partiality where arbitrator disclosed that he had previously been retained as an expert by one of the parties).

b. Undue Means

Nor is there record evidence that the award was procured by undue means as a result of the denial by the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") of PPGI's challenges to the arbitrator. Billion bbbbThe AAA's Commercial Arbitration Rules required that an arbitrator "be impartial and independent" and that, upon objection by a party, "the AAA shall determine whether the arbitrator should be disqualified" in a "decision [that] shall be conclusive." The denial of PPGI's challenges complied with the AAA's rules, which indisputably governed the arbitration proceedings. Under these circumstances, the District Court correctly ruled that the award was not procured by undue means within the meaning of the FAA. Cf. Drayer v. Krasner, 572 F.2d 348, 352 (2d Cir. 1978) (Friendly, J.) (undue means provision applied where the party openly offered evidence for the purpose of causing prejudice where arbitrators declined to receive the evidence).

c. Manifest Disregard of the Law

PPGI also argues that the award must be vacated because the arbitrator disregarded the law regarding implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing and declined to rule on its "pivotal" claim that NGC breached those covenants. We have required vacatur of an arbitral award for manifest disregard of the law only where "the governing law alleged to have been ignored by the arbitrator[] was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable," and "the arbitrator knew about the existence of a clearly governing legal principle but decided to ignore it." Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 646 F.3d 113, 121 n.1 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). Here, the arbitrator explicitly addressed and rejected PPGI's claim for breach of the implied covenants. Moreover, his conclusion that there was no implied duty to make commercially reasonable efforts to sell the advertising time, based on evidence that the parties explicitly chose not to include such an obligation in the contract, accords with applicable law. See City of Yonkers v. Otis Elevator Co., 844 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1988); Perma Research & Dev. v. Singer Co., 542 F.2d 111, 118-19 & n.4 (2d Cir. 1976).

2. Denial of Discovery

Post-award discovery regarding an arbitrator's alleged bias is appropriate in limited situations where "clear evidence of impropriety" has been presented. Lucent, 379 F.3d at 32 (quotation marks omitted). For the reasons discussed above, PPGI has failed to make the necessary showing of impropriety on the part of the arbitrator. Therefore, even assuming PPGI adequately raised the need for discovery below, the District Court did not err in refusing to permit discovery.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: The “Intent to Deprive” Standard in Rule 37(e)(2) Is The Equivalent of Bad Faith in Other Spoliation Contexts — Bad Faith Generally Means Destruction For The Purpose Of Hiding Adverse Evidence — Mere Negligence Is Insufficient Because It Does Not Sustain An Inference of Consciousness of a Weak Case

Sanctions and Attorney-Client Privilege: Sham (Objectively Baseless, Bad Faith) Litigation for Antitrust Purposes Triggers Crime-Fraud Exception — Not All Frivolous Litigation Falls within Crime-Fraud Exception (But Some Sanctionable Behavior Clearly Does)

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice