Courts have confirmed and vacated arbitration awards on different bases:
- Arbitrator’s interpretation of agreement: awards confirmed - Asociacion de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de P. R. v. Union Internacional de Trabajadores de la Industria de Automoviles, No. 07-2636 (1st Cir. Mar. 6, 2009) (vacating partial vacation of award, since arbitrator employed a plausible construction of the contract at issue); Horizon Lines of P.R., Inc. v. Local 1575, Int’l. Longshoremen’s Assoc. AFL-CIO, Case No. 08-1611 (USDC D.P.R. Mar. 6, 2009) (confirming award since interpretation of agreement was plausible; Hall Street eliminated manifest disregard of law doctrine); System Council U-3 of the Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Case No. 07-5248 (USDC D.N.J. Feb. 25, 2009) (confirming award since it was rational and drew its essence from the agreement; panel had authority to bar irrelevant and cumulative evidence); awards vacated - Boardwalk Regency Corp. v. Unite Here Local 54, Case No. 08-16 (USDC D.N.J. Mar. 3, 2009) (vacating award as not drawing its essence from the contract); N.J. Carpenters Funds v. Professional Furniture Services, Case No. 08-3690 (USDC D.N.J. Feb. 26, 2009) (vacating award because arbitrator exceeded his authority in interpreting the contract at issue);
- Vacation on miscellaneous grounds denied: MCI Constructors, Inc. v. Hazen and Sawyer, P.C., Case Nos. 99-2 and 02-96 (USDC M.D.N.C. Mar. 9, 2009) (two opinions in two related cases: 99-2 - request to vacate award denied – arbitrators could select procedures; reasoned award not required; award not in violation of public policy – 02-96: request to vacate award denied – panel not exceed powers; panel has authority to determine what evidence to hear; award not obtained by undue means; no breach of arbitration agreement); Regnery Publishing, Inc. v. Miniter, Case No. 08-709 (USDC D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2009) (ruling by AAA instead of arbitrator on Motion to Recuse not justify vacation of award); Williams v. Mexican Restaurant, Inc., Case No. 05-841 (USDC E.D.Tex. Feb. 27, 2009) (Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation that award be confirmed even though it was “astonishing, eye-popping and, perhaps, soft-witted” since errors of fact not justify vacating awards) (objections have been filed to the R&R);
- Evident material miscalculation: Volk v. X-Rite, Inc., Case No. 08-0054 (USDC S.D.Iowa Mar. 2, 2009) (attempt to select Michigan state law ineffective; no manifest disregard of law (without discussing Hall Street); award modified due to an evident material miscalculation);
- Miscellaneous: Sathianathan v. Smith Barney, Inc., Case No. 04-2130 (USDC N.D.Cal. Mar. 3, 2009) (denying FRCP 60 motion for relief from Order confirming arbitration award – see Sept. 12, 2007 post regarding discovery with respect to the Rule 60 motion); Clearwater Ins. Co. v. Various London Market Reinsurers, Case No. 08-8695 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2009) (entering judgment for several liability on reinsurance arbitration award of $1.9 million - see Petition, Answer to Petition and Memorandum in Support of Confirmation).