Since our last post on arbitration award confirmation/vacation, eight opinions of some note have been entered, all of which confirmed or declined to vacate arbitration awards. Many parties challenging awards continue to argue that they are in manifest disregard of law. The courts issuing the opinions reported in this post were reluctant to address the issue of whether the doctrine is viable after Hall Street Associates, and instead reviewed the awards and found that they were not in manifest disregard of law.

  • Acuna v. Aerofreeze, Inc., Case No. 06-432 (USDC ED Tex. Oct. 29, 2008) (award not in manifest disregard of law, if that doctrine is viable)
  • Carlisle v. Citimortgage, Inc., Case No. 06-677 (USDC ED Mo. Nov. 10, 2008) (award not irrational or in manifest disregard of law, without any discussion of the viability of the doctrine)
  • Su Zhou Tian Lu Steel Co. v. Sherman Int’l. Corp., Case No. 08-883 (USDC WD Pa. Oct. 27, 2008) (rejecting five challenges to the award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards relating to an arbitration hearing held in Sweden)
  • O’Leary v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., Case No. 05-6016 (USDC D N.J. Dec. 5, 2008) (motion to vacate award denied – no manifest disregard of law (the court noted that it was unclear whether the doctrine was still viable))
  • Legacy Trading Co. v. Hoffman, Case No. 07-1383 (USDC WD Okla. Dec. 8, 2008) (motion to reconsider confirmation of award denied – no valid basis for reconsideration)