United States: Second Circuit And New York Appellate Division Decisions Affirm Pro-Arbitration Policies

Key Points

  • In Deasang Corp. v. NutraSweet Co., the Appellate Division overturned a ruling by a lower court vacating an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitral panel manifestly disregarded the law. The Appellate Division reaffirmed that “manifest disregard” is a “severely limited doctrine” that “gives extreme deference to arbitrators.”
  • In General Re Life Corp. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance, the 2nd Circuit adopted an exception to the functus officio doctrine that allows an arbitral panel to clarify its own ambiguous award.
  • Both decisions reaffirm the strong state and federal policies in favor of arbitration and once again make clear that arbitral awards will be given substantial deference by New York courts.

In two recent decisions, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and the New York Appellate Division reaffirmed the strong state and federal policies in favor of arbitration and once again made clear that arbitral awards will be given substantial deference by the courts. In Deasang Corp. v. NutraSweet Co., the Appellate Division overturned a ruling by an overzealous lower court that had vacated an arbitral award on the purported ground that the arbitral panel had manifestly disregarded the law. In General Re Life Corp. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance, the 2nd Circuit made clear that an arbitral panel has the authority to clarify its own ambiguous award. These decisions emphasize that the U.S. remains a strongly “arbitration friendly” jurisdiction.

Daesang Corp. v. Nutrasweet Co.

In a decision with important implications for the confirmation of arbitration awards in New York state courts, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, reinstated an arbitral award that had been vacated by the lower court, holding that the lower court incorrectly vacated the award on the ground of manifest disregard for the law. The decision, Deasang Corp. v. NutraSweet Co., reaffirms that New York state courts will vacate arbitral awards under only exceedingly rare circumstances and that the New York state court system remains a favorable forum in which to seek confirmation of an arbitral award.

The decision arose from an asset purchase agreement and processing agreement between NutraSweet and Daesang through which Daesang sold all of its aspartame assets to NutraSweet, including a manufacturing facility, and agreed to provide aspartame production services going forward at the same facility. Both agreements were governed by New York law and provided that disputes were to be resolved by a three-member tribunal in New York under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. The parties also entered into a joint defense and confidentiality agreement that allowed NutraSweet to rescind the transaction if legal proceedings challenging the deal as an antitrust violation were instituted by any customer that met certain size requirements.

Three years after the transaction closed, NutraSweet sought to rescind the deal based on an antitrust class action filed against NutraSweet and Daesang by several industrial aspartame customers. As a result, Daesang commenced arbitration proceedings against NutraSweet for breach of the agreements. NutraSweet defended the claims on several grounds, including that (1) NutraSweet was entitled to equitable rescission of the agreements based on the alleged falsity of certain representations and warranties made by Daesang, which NutraSweet argued allowed it to rescind the agreement on the basis of fraudulent inducement; and (2) Daesang breached the agreements by failing to maintain the plant and failing to manufacture aspartame according to the agreed-upon specifications and at sufficient quantities.

The panel sided with Daesang on all claims and dismissed all of NutraSweet’s counterclaims and defenses. With respect to equitable rescission, the panel found that NutraSweet’s arguments were contractual in nature and could not be pursued on a theory of fraudulent inducement. With respect to NutraSweet’s breach-of-contract claim, the panel dismissed the claim because it found that NutraSweet had not asserted a breach of contract claim independent of its equitable rescission arguments, based on a finding that any such breach-of-contract claim had been waived.

Daesang moved to confirm the award in the Supreme Court, New York County. NutraSweet answered and cross-moved to vacate the award on the grounds that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law and evidence, violated public policy, and failed to discharge their duties in accordance with the law. After a hearing, the Supreme Court sided with NutraSweet and vacated the award on manifest disregard grounds. Regarding equitable rescission, the Supreme Court held that the panel “chose to disregard the well-established principle [invoked by NutraSweet during the arbitration] that a fraud claim can be based on breach of contractual warranties where the misrepresentations are of present facts (in contrast to future performance).” Regarding the counterclaim for breach of contract, the Court held that the record failed to establish that NutraSweet had waived this claim.

On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, squarely rejected the Court’s rationale and granted Daesang’s petition to confirm the arbitration award. The First Department reiterated that “manifest disregard” is a “severely limited doctrine” that “gives extreme deference to arbitrators.” To modify or vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard for the law, a court must find “both that (1) the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrators was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case.” The First Department held that this standard had not been met.

Without addressing whether the panel’s legal reasoning was correct or incorrect, the First Department reasoned that the panel, at worst, misapplied the law regarding equitable rescission, rather than ignoring it altogether, as evidenced by the fact that the panel expressly quoted and applied the governing legal principles in its decision. A manifest disregard of the law “requires more than a simple error in law or a failure by the arbitrators to understand or apply it.” Moreover, to the extent that NutraSweet argued that the arbitrators misapplied the facts, the First Department explained that “manifest disregard of the facts is not a permissible ground for vacatur of an award.”

The First Department also rejected NutraSweet’s argument that the panel improperly found that NutraSweet had waived its breach-of-contract claim. NutraSweet relied on the provision of the Federal Arbitration Act authorizing vacatur of an award “where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” The First Department, however, held that the mere fact that this counterclaim was rejected on procedural grounds (i.e., waiver), rather than on the merits, did not prevent it from being a “mutual, final, and definite award on that claim or defense.” Furthermore, the court explained that, even if it ultimately disagreed with the panel’s finding of waiver, the court “is not empowered to review the arbitrator’s procedural findings, any more than it is empowered to review the arbitrator’s determinations of law or fact.” Thus, “an arbitral decision even arguably construing or applying the procedural record must stand, regardless of a court’s view of its (de)merits.”

General Re Life Corp. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance

In General Re Life Corp. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance, the 2nd Circuit joined a number of other Courts of Appeals in adopting an exception to the functus officio doctrine, holding that, where an arbitral award is ambiguous, the arbitrator retains authority to clarify it.

The case involved a dispute between a life insurance company, Lincoln, and its reinsurer, General Re, arising under a reinsurance agreement that permitted General Re to increase premiums under certain circumstances, but gave Lincoln the option to “recapture” its policies (i.e., sever the reinsurance relationship) rather than pay the increased premiums. General Re sought to increase its premiums, and Lincoln challenged the increase in arbitration. The parties agreed to maintain the status quo while the arbitration was proceeding, with Lincoln paying the pre-increase premiums and General Re continuing to pay claims as they arose.

The panel held that General Re had the right to increase its premiums, and provided for the unwinding of premium and claim transactions if Lincoln opted to recapture the policies. After Lincoln elected to recapture its policies, the parties disagreed about the meaning of the portion of the award requiring premium and claims transactions to be unwound. In response, the panel issued a clarification to its award, explaining that its original award was ambiguous and that neither party had correctly interpreted it. General Re, unhappy with the clarification, petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut to confirm the original (i.e., unclarified) award, and Lincoln filed a cross-petition to confirm the award with the clarification. The district court denied General Re’s petition and granted Lincoln’s petition to confirm the clarified award.

The 2nd Circuit affirmed. On appeal, General Re argued that the arbitral panel exceeded its powers in issuing the clarification because the panel was “functus officio.” Under this doctrine, “once arbitrators have fully exercised their authority to adjudicate the issues submitted to them, their authority over those questions is ended, and the arbitrators have no further authority, absent authority of the parties, to redetermine those issues.” The 2nd Circuit disagreed, adopting an exception to the functus officio doctrine that had been previously adopted by the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th circuits where an arbitral award “fails to address a contingency that later arises when the award is susceptible to more than one interpretation.” The court set forth three elements that must be met before the exception will be applied: “(1) the final award is ambiguous; (2) the clarification merely clarifies the award rather than substantively modifying it; and (3) the clarification comports with the parties’ intent as set forth in the agreement that gave rise to the arbitration.”

The court’s decision is in keeping with existing law in the 2nd Circuit, which requires that a court tasked with confirming an ambiguous award remand to the arbitrator for clarification. Furthermore, because it was the arbitrator that issued the ambiguous ruling in the first place, it makes sense for the arbitrator to clarify it. As such, the decision promotes the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration by allowing the arbitrator to retain authority to interpret its own awards and allowing the parties to avoid expensive litigation outside of the arbitration.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Practice Guides
by Mondaq AdviceCenter
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Sign Up
Gain free access to lawyers expertise from more than 250 countries.
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Country
Position
Industry
Mondaq Newsalert
Select Topics
Select Regions
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions