Following is a roundup of recent opinions on motions concerning the confirmation, vacation, and modification of arbitration awards, organized by the issues presented in the motions:

Public Policy

Potenciano L. Aggarao, Jr. v. Mol Ship Mgt. Co. Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-3106-CCB (USDC D. Md. Aug. 7, 2014) (granting motion to vacate Philippine arbitration decision on the basis that it violated U.S. public policy because the foreign arbitrator improperly denied an injured seafarer the opportunity to pursue certain remedies to which he was entitled under U.S. general maritime law)


Ecopetrol S.A. et al. v. Offshore Exploration and Production, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-529-JGK (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2014) (holding that an interim award was confirmable, that there was no manifest disregard of controlling law concerning the arbitrators’ jurisdiction, and that the arbitrators acted within the scope of their authority and in accordance with the rules governing the International Centre for Dispute Resolution)

Evident Partiality

Cellu-Beep, Inc. v. Telecorp Comm., Inc., Case No. 13-cv-7236-NRB (USDC S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2014) (finding no evident partiality where arbitrator suggested that a statute of limitations defense might apply where neither party had previously raised that issue)

Manifest Disregard

Gerald W. Hayden v. CISCO Sys., Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-464-VLB (USDC D. Conn. Sep. 2, 2014) (denying motion to vacate, no manifest disregard in age discrimination case)

Galloway Construction, LLC v. Utilipath, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:13-CV-161-PLR-CCS (USDC E.D.Tenn. Oct. 21, 2014) (denying, on reconsideration, a motion to vacate an arbitration award based on alleged manifest disregard of the law)

Vito F. Cardinale, et al. v. 267 Sixth St., LLC, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-4845 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2014) (no manifest disregard, arbitrator did not exceed his authority, award not “irrational”)