FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/06/ :51 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2016
|
|
- Isabel Logan
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/06/ :51 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2016 ALLIED CAPITAL CORPORATION and CIENA CAPITAL LLC (f/k/a BUSINESS LOAN EXPRESS LLC), Claimants, - against AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY JAMS Case Number LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. PARTIAL FINAL AWARD (CORRECTED) On or about March 8, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Partial Final Award ("PFA"), one arbitrator dissenting. The PFA granted the insurer's ("AISLIC's") motion for summary disposition seeking a declaration of no coverage for a loss allegedly suffered by its insured, Allied Capital Corporation ("Allied"). The panel also denied the insured's reciprocal motion for summary disposition. The PFA further determined that, while Allied was not entitled to be indemnified for the $10.1 million payment that the government ultimately received, it was entitled to its defense costs. In that regard, however, the panel determined that an evidentiary hearing was required to fix the amount. Thus, the panel denied that part of the insurer's motion that sought to deny Allied its defense costs, and granted that part of Allied's motion that sought defense costs, but reserved on the amount. 1
2 By letter dated April 1, 2016 ("Allied's Appl."), Allied requested the Tribunal to reconsider the PFA on the basis, among others, that the majority of the Tribunal erred in finding that Allied did not suffer a "Loss" as that term was used in the applicable insurance policy. AISLIC opposes Allied's motion for reconsideration on both procedural and substantive grounds. AISLIC first argues that the Tribunal, having issued a PFA denying coverage, has no power to reconsider that award other than for computational, typographical or similar errors, and then only upon Allied's timely application in compliance with JAMS Comprehensive Rule 24(j).1 AISLIC then argues that the PFA's conclusions were in any event correct and that the finding of no coverage must be confirmed even if the Tribunal reaches the merits of Allied's Application. Further, even assuming arguendo that the Tribunal erred on the merits, the arbitrators are powerless to rectify the mistake once a final award on the issue of coverage has been made. On the other hand, Allied argues that the Tribunal is not prohibited by the doctrine of functus officio or otherwise from reconsidering the PFA, and that any reference to the JAMS Comprehensive Rules is misplaced because those rules do not govern the conduct of the arbitration. Allied, of course, also argues that the panel erred in finding that Allied did not suffer JAMS Rule 24(j) provides in pertinent part: "Within seven (7) calendar days after service of a Partial Final Award or Final Award by JAMS, any Party may serve upon the other Parties and on JAMS a request that the Arbitrator correct any computational, typographical or other similar error in an Award... or the Arbitrator may sua sponte propose to correct such error in an Award.... The Arbitrator may extend the time within which to make corrections upon good cause..." 2
3 an insurable "Loss" as that term is defined in the 2008 Policy, and that "the interests of justice require that the Tribunal reconsider its Partial Final Award." (Allied's Appl. At 2). The parties briefed the issues at the request of the Tribunal, and a hearing was conducted on June 7, 2016 at which counsel argued their respective positions. A. Do the JAMS Comprehensive Rules apply, and, if so, is Allied barred by the JAMS Rules from pursuing its motion for reconsideration? AISLIC argues that JAMS Rule 24(j) is the exclusive means to challenge a partial final award, and that Allied cannot rely on Rule 24(j) because: (i) it does not permit a merits reconsideration, and (ii) Allied's motion for reconsideration was in any event untimely under the rule. Allied counters that the arbitration was not conducted under the JAMS Rules, and AISLIC's reliance on Rule 24(j) to avoid reconsideration of the PFA is therefore misplaced. After due consideration, the Tribunal agrees with Allied that the JAMS Comprehensive Rules do not govern the procedure in this arbitration. This arbitration was originally brought under the 2008 Policy with AISLIC arguing that the circumstances that gave rise to the loss first arose in 2006 and that by reason of the so-called "prior claims exclusion" in the 2008 Policy the Tribunal should look to the 2006 Policy to determine coverage. The arbitration agreement in the 2008 Policy does not reference the JAMS Rules. Instead, Clause 17 of 2008 Policy simply provides that "all disputes or differences which may arise with regard to the construction or interpretation of the provisions of this policy, whether arising before or after termination of this policy shall be submitted to the alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") process set forth in this Clause." The remainder of Clause 17 describes the possibility of a mediation prior to an arbitration. If an arbitration is required, Clause 17 then describes how a panel is to be formed 3
4 (each side to select an arbitrator and then the two so chosen to select a chair). The Clause then addresses choice of law and excludes punitive or consequential damages. It nowhere mentions the rules of a particular provider organization. The parties' arbitration agreement in Clause 17 of the 2006 Policy also does not refer to the JAMS Comprehensive Rules, but to -arbitration submitted to the American Arbitration Association under or in accordance with its then-prevailing Commercial Arbitration Rules." On February 11, 2013, a preliminary conference was conducted with the parties by telephone to discuss the procedures to govern the arbitration. The results of that conference were set forth in writing in Procedural Order No. 1. Prior to the conference, the panel sent a list of questions to counsel with instructions to meet and confer and to agree on as many procedural aspects as possible. One of the specific questions on which counsel were asked to confer was "3. Please advise what procedural rules and what substantive law you believe will govern the arbitration?" While the parties reached agreement on many of the procedural questions that the panel asked in its , they did not reach an agreement on the application of any institutional rules. Instead, after the conference took place, Procedural Order No. 1, which memorialized the agreements reached at the conference, simply recited in paragraph 6 that "This is an insurance coverage dispute essentially involving two insurance policies... The law of the State of New York... governs the 2008 Policy. The law of the State of Delaware... will apply to the 2006 Policy." It says nothing about any particular institutional rules that may govern the arbitration. The fact that the case is being administered by JAMS and bears a JAMS case number does not equate to an agreement by the parties to use the JAMS Comprehensive Rules. The 2008 Policy contains a New York choice of law clause in Clause 17 ("The dispute or differences considered by the mediator or arbitrators shall be governed by the internal laws of the 4
5 State of New York [except for certain enumerated exceptions not here relevant]"). The 2006 Policy is governed by Delaware law. The arbitration was conducted in New York City thus implying the applicability of New York procedural law to the arbitration. At most, the choice of law clauses and the venue of the arbitration speak to the applicability of state procedural law (such as that contained in Article 75 of the CPLR) as an overlay to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). Neither New York nor Delaware law mandate the use of any particular institutional rules.2 The FAA is similarly silent leaving it up to the parties to choose the procedure to govern their arbitration. Volt Information Sciences v. Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468 (1989). AISLIC points out that the parties, in various pieces of correspondence, referenced the JAMS Comprehensive Rules. Most of such correspondence, however, was sent or received prior to the parties' entry into Procedural Order No. 1 on February 11, There are three references to the JAMS Comprehensive Rules after February 11, In one of them dated March 19, 2015 the arbitrators asked specifically (in the context of AISLIC's application citing JAMS Comprehensive Rule 15(i)-- to remove Mr. Joyce as Allied's party-appointed arbitrator): "Section 17 of the 2008 Policy, Alternative Dispute Resolution Process, does not require the arbitration to be conducted under JAMS Rules. Do the parties want the JAMS Rules and specifically Rule 15(i) to apply to this arbitration?" (Tab 12 of AISLIC's bound submission 2 The 2008 Policy's arbitration agreement describes what is known as an ad hoc arbitration with no named administrative authority or institutional rules. One piece of correspondence dated December 22, 2010 came from the intake case manager at JAMS. She confirmed that JAMS had received a Demand for Arbitration and her letter included the statement "It is my understanding that this arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures Rules (sic)." No party confirmed that statement, and, again, a statement by an administrative person cannot equate to an agreement by the parties to be governed by the JAMS Comprehensive Rules. 5
6 served at the June 7, 2016 hearing). Counsel for Allied responded: "We consider the conflict issue to be a procedural matter which, as previously agreed with respect to such matters, is to be decided by the Chairperson." Id. That response, which does not constitute an agreement to use the JAMS Rules, is consistent with Procedural Order No. 1. In sum, any references to the JAMS Rules are no substitute for an explicit party agreement, and the Tribunal declines to infer such an agreement especially when the parties were asked, prior to the finalization of Procedural Order No. 1, to specify the arbitral procedure and declined to do so4 and when the parties were invited to specify the JAMS Rules in March 2015 and again declined to do so. As the JAMS Rules do not apply to the arbitration, Allied's failure to comply with JAMS Rule 24(j) is not a bar to its Application for reconsideration. B. Is Allied's Application barred by the doctrine of functus officio? The parties have not brought any New York or Delaware law to the attention of the Tribunal that would bar a motion for reconsideration after the issuance of a partial final award. The FAA is silent on the issue. Allied contends that the basis for such a bar, however, may be found in the common law doctrine of functus officio.5 According to Judge Posner, the doctrine has its roots "In the bad old days when judges were hostile to arbitration and ingenious in We recognize that this may have been an oversight as opposed to a deliberate decision, but whatever the reason the record is nonetheless devoid of any agreement on the application of institutional rules to the arbitration. As Judge Baer explained in Employers' Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Global Reinsurance Corp., 2008 WL at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2008) ("Global Re'), "[T]he common law doctrine of functus officio presumes that an arbitrator's final decision on an issue strips him of authority to consider that issue further" citing Trade & Transport, Inc. v. Natural Petroleum Charterers, 931 F.2d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 1991), 6
7 hamstringing it." Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers Intl Union v. Excelsior Foundry Co., 56 F.3d 844, 846 (7th Cir. 1995), quoted at fn. 6. in Global Re cited above. As Judge Baer further explained in Global Re at *9: "the rationale underlying [functus officio] is to prevent re-examination of any issue by a nonjudicial officer potentially subject to outside communication and unilateral influence- citing New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council v. Hotel St. George, 988 F.Supp. 770, 781 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Several cases have examined the doctrine in the context of a litigant's attempt either to avoid or enforce the finality of an arbitration award. In Trade & Transport, supra, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award. There, the parties asked for a bifurcated proceeding, and a panel of three arbitrators issued an award as to liability only. One of the arbitrators then died before the damages hearing could be conducted. The district court appointed a replacement arbitrator, and the losing party then moved for reconsideration of the liability award. The newly constituted panel refused, held a hearing on damages, and issued a final award. In affirming confirmation of the award, the Court of Appeals held that the panel's failure to reconsider the liability award did not constitute -misconduct" under 9 U.S.C. Section 10(c). The Court explained, "Thus, if the parties have asked the arbitrators to make a final partial award as to a particular issue and the arbitrators have done so, the arbitrators have no further authority, absent agreement by the parties, to redetermine that issue." Trade & Transport, supra, 931 F.2d at 195. It was clearly important in that case that the parties "asked the panel to decide the issue of liability immediately, a decision that was expressly intended to have immediate collateral effects in the judicial proceeding. The panel understood that this was to be a final decision as to liability." Id. 7
8 Since the Second Circuit decided Trade & Transport in 1991, several other courts have wrestled with the application of the doctrine offunctus officio. The Global Re decision, supra, refused to apply the doctrine. There, the arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award in which he made two separate liability findings based on his interpretation of an insurance certificate. Id. at *2. One of the parties moved in the district court to confirm the first liability finding (as to coverage) but to vacate the second liability finding (relating to the payment of defense costs). The insured opposed the insurer's petition as premature and argued that the partial final award was not "final" pursuant to the FAA because the issue of the entitlement to counsel fees was still pending. Id. The district court declined to rule on either party's petition and instead referred the parties to the Arbitrator for further proceedings. The Arbitrator ultimately issued a Final Award retaining the Partial Final Award's first liability finding, but expanding upon, and thereby changing, the second liability finding. Id. at *3. In confirming the Final Award (which reconsidered and changed in certain respects one of the liability findings in the Partial Final Award), the district court determined that the doctrine offunctus officio did not preclude the Arbitrator's reconsideration of the Partial Final Award because the Partial Final Award as originally rendered did not completely determine the parties' claims. Id. at *5. As the district court explained, "Generally, in order for a claim to be completely determined, the arbitrators must have decided not only the issue of liability of a party on the claim, but also the issue of damages." [citing, Michaels v. Mariforum Shipping, S.A., 624 F.2d 411, 412 at (2d Cir. 1980)]... [H]ere, as the Partial Final Award left open the question of damages on the second liability finding, it would have been error for me to review it and thus my only option was to remand the parties' dispute to the Arbitrator." Id. 8
9 The district court distinguished Trade & Transport by explaining that "in that case, the parties expressly requested the arbitration panel to make an immediate determination as to liability, leaving for a later time the calculation of damages... The Second Circuit held that the arbitrators were functus officio once they decided liability but based its conclusion on the parties' express intent to bifurcate the arbitration proceedings between liability and damages." As the district court in Global Re concluded, "I agree with [the insurer] that Trade & Transport is distinguishable from the case at bar. Because the parties in Trade & Transport had explicitly modified their original arbitration submission to bifurcate the liability and damages issues, and the partial final award 'conclusively decide[d] every point required by and included in the first part of the parties modified submission,' the partial final award in that case was final. 931 F.2d at 195. Such is not the case here." Global Re, supra, at *5. In the present case, the parties did not bifurcate the proceedings, but they did make reciprocal motions for summary disposition on the issue of coverage. Included in those motions, however, were requests for a determination of all issues, including those relating to defense costs.' The PFA in the instant case determined the coverage issue and further determined that the insured was entitled to its defense costs but left open the proceedings for a hearing on the amount, if anything, of such defense costs. It is significant that the Policy's definition of "Loss" includes defense costs. Thus, the PFA did not determine in any fashion the total amount of the insured's Loss regarding defense costs. Further, the insurer did not move in the district court to confirm the PFA. It is uncertain under these circumstances whether such a motion to confirm would have been entertained. If not, this is a factor that militates for the non-application of the 6 Allied first demanded its defense costs in its Demand for Arbitration. See, Demand for Arbitration dated October 21, 2010 at page 9. 9
10 functus officio doctrine. As the district court explained in Global Re ("[C]ommon sense requires that if a district court confirms a partial final award, the arbitrator is functus officio, i.e., without power to modify it. Applying logic, the contrapositive is also true: if an arbitrator is not, functus officio as to an interim award, then the interim award is not subject to judicial review. It seems likely, as well, that if a partial final award lacks ripeness for judicial review, the arbitrator is not,functus officio and may reconsider it.") Id. at *4. In Rocket Jewelry Box v. Noble Gift Packaging, 157 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 1998), the Second Circuit discussed when an arbitration award is "final" for purposes of confirmation. There, the Court analyzed the tests articulated in both Trade & Transport and Conn Tech Dev. Co. v. University of Conn., 102 F.3d 677 (2d Cir. 1996). The Rocket Jewelry Box court concluded that the tests used in those cases were "two ways of saying the same thing: that an arbitration award, to be final, must resolve all the issues submitted to arbitration, and that it must resolve them definitively enough so that the rights and obligations of the two parties, with respect to the issues submitted, do not stand in need of further adjudication. 157 F.3d at 176. (Emphasis in original) In Rocket Jewelry Box, the losing party opposed confirmation on the grounds that the dispute was not fully decided. However, the allegedly "undecided" dispute in that case was never submitted to the arbitrators. Taking these cases as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that in the context of this ad hoc arbitration-- the doctrine of functus officio does not preclude the panel's reconsideration of the Partial Final Award. The PFA did not resolve all issues submitted to the arbitrators in the parties' competing motions for summary disposition. Indeed, the insured recognized that, if its motion for defense costs was granted, further proceedings would most likely be needed. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that a district court would have entertained a motion to confirm the 10
11 PFA, and the PFA would not have been considered "final" for purposes of the functus officio doctrine. It is also the case that reconsideration in this case would not run afoul of the policy rationale underlying the doctrine, i.e, "to prevent re-examination of any issue by a nonjudicial officer potentially subject to outside communication and unilateral influence" (Global Re at *9) because the arbitration did not terminate with the PFA and the rule against ex parte contact with the arbitrators was, and has been, continuously in force. Moreover, if a mistake was made, it ought to be rectified. When in doubt, the. functus officio doctrine should not prevent an arbitral tribunal from arriving at a correct decision, especially given the deferential review accorded to arbitration awards. The Tribunal therefore reaches the merits of Allied's Application. C. Did the Tribunal Err in Determining that Allied did not suffer a "Loss" under the 2008 Policy? In its letter Application for reconsideration dated April 1, 2016, Allied points to several errors that it claims were made in the PFA. The Tribunal finds merit in several of these claims, the main one being that the PFA erroneously determined that Allied did not suffer a "Loss" under the 2008 Policy when Allied fulfilled its obligations under the FCA Settlement Agreement. As set forth in the PFA at paragraphs 30-34, Allied undertook an obligation under the FCA Settlement Agreement to "release a sufficient amount of the liens and security interests collateralizing the Secured Credit Facility to fund all distributions required to be funded under the Plan [of Reorganization in the Ciena bankruptcy]." PFA, para. 33. The PFA, however, concluded that the mere release of a portion of Allied's lien did not result in a Loss because Allied, as a secured creditor in an amount far in excess of the debtor's net realizable assets, 11
12 was after the release of a portion of Allied's lien - - still entitled to 100% of Ciena's equity.7 The PFA recognized that Ciena's value dropped because of its payment to the government (see, PFA paragraph 61), but determined that "A Loss, however, [under the Policy] does not include a diminution in the NRV [net realizable value] of a subsidiary, even if the accounting treatment reflected that reduction in value as a reduction in net income. AISLIC did not insure that risk." Id. The Tribunal determines that the error was made in this statement and in the further conclusions set forth in PFA paragraphs that no Loss occurred. AISLIC did not insure the risk of a diminution in the value of an insured's subsidiary, but it did insure a "Loss" arising out of a "Wrongful Act." As stated at page 4 of Allied's Application, "With the execution of the FCA Settlement Agreement, liability was imposed on both Allied and Ciena." Allied accepted and agreed to recognize its own liability in that settlement, not just the liability of its subsidiary. That acceptance of liability was not gratuitous. The government sued Allied as Ciena's alter ego. A viable cause of action thus existed directly against Allied. (See PFA, paragraph 88). Therefore, the "reduction in value [of the subsidiary] was the result of the FCA Settlement Agreement" (Id) and, as such, constitutes an insurable Loss. The subsequent post-petition loan was irrelevant to this conclusion. The Loss had already occurred. The money that Ciena paid to the government could have hypothetically come from anywhere, e.g., from a loan from an unrelated third party. Offsets to the Loss Here, the distinction between a lien and the assets secured by the lien becomes important. A lien may be in any amount, but its value is limited by the amount of the security secured by the lien. See, e.g., PFA paragraph
13 As explained at PFA paragraphs 96 and 97, AISLIC contends that if coverage is found under either the 2008 Policy or the 2006 Policy, it "shall apply only as excess over any other valid and collectible insurance," such as the XL Specialty and Indian Harbor policies insuring Ciena that were the subject of pending litigation in the Supreme Court of New York. That litigation has recently settled and some money has presumably changed hands as a result. The Tribunal must determine whether AISLIC is entitled to a credit for any recoveries under either of the above insurance policies. Conclusion Thus, upon reconsideration, the PFA is corrected to grant summary disposition on the issue of liability to Allied, and to deny summary disposition to AISLIC.8 The remainder of the PFA, including AISLIC's liability for defense costs, is affirmed. A telephone conference with counsel will be scheduled to determine the date for a final hearing on the issues of: (i) whether AISLIC is entitled to a credit for any Allied recoveries under the XL Specialty or Indian Harbor policies; and (ii) the appropriate amount, if any, due Allied for the defense costs incurred. Dated: August, 2016 Robert B. Davidson, Chairman Edward M. Joyce, Arbitrator Any statements in the PFA inconsistent with the conclusion above are deemed amended and corrected as well. 13
14 As explained at PFA paragraphs 96 and 97, A ISLIC contends that it'coveraae is tbund under either the 2008 Policy or the 2006 Policy. it "shall apply only as excess over any other valid and collectible insurance," such as the XL Specialty and Indian Harbor policies insuring Ciena that were the subject of pending litigation in the Supreme Court of New York. That litigation has recently settled and some money has presumably changed hands as a result. The Tribunal must determine whether A IS LIC is entitled to a credit for any recoveries under either of the above insurance policies. Conclusion Thus, upon reconsideration, the PFA is corrected to grant summary disposition on the issue of liability to Allied, and to deny summary disposition to AISLIC.s The remainder of the PFA, including liability for defense costs, is affirmed. A telephone conference with counsel will be scheduled to determine the date for a final hearing on the issues of': (i) whether AISLIC is entitled to a credit for any Allied recoveries under the XL Specialty or Indian Harbor policies; and (ii) the appropriate amount, if any, due Allied for the defense costs incurred. Dated: August ig, 2016.(3 Robert B. Davidson. Chairman Edward M. Joyce, Arbitrator 8 Any statements in the PFA inconsistent with the conclusion above are deemed amended and corrected as well. 13
15 Thomas R. Newman, Arbitrator (dissenting) 14
16 Thomas R. Newman (dissenting) For the reasons stated below, [1] Allied's motion for reconsideration should be denied because the Tribunal is barred by the doctrine of functus officio from reconsidering and altering its Partial Final Award ("PFA"), and [2] the Tribunal's conclusion in 1199 of the PFA that "Claimant's motion for Summary Disposition seeking to recover the monies paid to the Government in connection with the FCA Settlement is DENIED and AISLIC's reciprocal Motion for Summary Disposition is GRANTED" is correct and should be adhered to. I. In its PFA (Corrected), the Tribunal quotes from Trade & Transport, Inc. v. Natural Petroleum Charterers, Inc., 931 F.2d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 1991), where the Second Circuit held if the parties have asked the arbitrators to make a final partial award as to a particular issue and the arbitrators have done so, the arbitrators have no further authority, absent agreement by the parties, to redetermine that issue. And in Employers' Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Global Re. Corp. U.S. Branch, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8253 at *18-*19 (SDNY 2008), relied on by the Tribunal, the District Court stated: a partial award is final (and thus ripe for a petition to confirm) if it finally disposes of a separate, independent claim. This holds true even where the parties have not asked the arbitrator to decide a claim separately. "Disposition of an issue that is severable from other issues still before the arbitrator may be deemed final and subject to confirmation."... Sperry Int'l Trade, Inc. v. Gov't of Israel, 532 F. Supp. 901, 906 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), affd, 689 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1982) (emphasis added); see also Kerr Mc- Gee Ref. Corp. v. M/T Triumph, 924 F.2d 467, 471 (2d Cir. 1991) ("An award that finally and conclusively disposes of a 'separate independent claim' may be confirmed even if it does not dispose of all the claims that were submitted to arbitration.")(emphasis added).. After both parties moved for summary disposition Allied seeking to recover in full its alleged "Loss" and AISLIC seeking dismissal of the claim in its entirety Allied's counsel, by words and actions, implicitly if not explicitly, agreed to bifurcation of [1] the issue of coverage DM 1 \
17 for Allied's claim to be indemnified for its alleged $10.1 million "Loss" stemming from Ciena 's payment to the Government in settlement of the Brickman Action, and [2] whether it was entitled to recover its defense costs in the Brickman Action and, if so, the amount of such recovery. Allied's brief in opposition to AISLIC's motion stated (at p. 43) that "the quantum of attorneys' fees need not be decided on this motion, but could be subject to a separate evidentiary process in the event coverage is found." Then, at the hearing on August 25, 2015, Allied's counsel agreed that the amount awarded as defense costs "would be the topic for a separate proceeding... like an inquest to prove up what was done and how much was done." (Tr. 8/25/15, 140:6-22). The Chairman then said, "So a partial summary disposition is in the cards," and Allied's counsel replied, "I think that makes the most sense." (Tr. 141:2-5). AISLIC's counsel did not disagree. A further indication of Allied's agreement to bifurcation is that Allied offered no proof of the amount of its defense costs sought to be recovered. Thus, the quantum of defense costs was not an issue submitted to the Tribunal for summary disposition. The Tribunal disposed of the two separate, independent claims submitted to it for summary disposition: 1. Is Allied entitled to recover the $10.1 million paid to the Government by Ciena? No. 2. Is Allied entitled to recover its defense costs in the Brickman action? Yes, and a hearing is required to determine the amount of those defense costs. Allied's separate and independent claim to be indemnified for its alleged $10.1 million "Loss" is final for purposes of the functus officio rule which -presumes that an arbitrator's final decision on an issue strips him of authority to consider that issue further." Employers' Surplus Lines Ins. Co., supra, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8253 at *4. DM 1'
18 The Tribunal states that "if a mistake was made, it ought to be rectified. When in doubt, the functus officio doctrine should not prevent an arbitral tribunal from arriving at a correct decision, especially given the deferential review accorded to arbitration awards." (p. 11). This is much too broad an interpretation of the exception for mistakes that permits an arbitrator to correct only clerical or other obvious errors such as mathematical calculations. The law is clear that the exceptions to the.functus officio doctrine allow an arbitrator to "correct a mistake which is apparent on the face of his award, complete an arbitration if the award is not complete, and clarify an ambiguity in the award." International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehouse-men and Helpers of Am., AFL-CIO, Local 631 v. Silver State Disp. Serv., Inc., 109 F.3d 1409, 1412 (9th Cir. 1997) But, the "spirit and basic effect of the award" may not be modified, as the Tribunal has done here. In Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co. v. TIG Reinsurance Co., 183 F.R.D. 112, (SDNY 1998), the court stated: Arbitrators should simply be permitted to correct errors -- but only errors - - upon remand even if the particular issue was not remanded. This holding in no way gives arbitrators carte blanche to alter any decision previously rendered. Given the unusual circumstance -- namely, that the arbitrators acknowledged a mathematical error, one that neither party disputes -- equitable factors in this case weigh in favor of Clarendon, and the motion to confirm will be granted. Finally, the Tribunal says "it is unlikely that a district court would have entertained a motion to confirm the PFA, and the PFA would not have been considered 'final' for purposes of functus officio doctrine." (p. 10). It "unlikely" that either party would have made a motion to confirm the PFA insofar as it required further proceedings to determine the quantum of an award for defense costs, as that, clearly, is non-final. If a district court follows the law set out above, it is likely to find that the Tribunal erred in granting Allied's motion for reconsideration. DM 1 \ I 3
19 In any event, the original PFA should be adhered to as correct. The PFA stated (1160), An insured cannot collect insurance without demonstrating some damage or pecuniary loss arising from an insured risk." Allied never made such a demonstration. After stating that "ASLIC did not insure the risk of a diminution in the value of an insured's subsidiary, but it did insure a 'Loss' arising out of a 'Wrongful Act,. the Tribunal incorrectly concludes that "the 'reduction in value [of the subsidiary] was the result of the FCA Settlement Agreement'... and, as such, constitutes an insurable Loss." (p. 12) Allied could easily have paid the $10.1 million settlement on behalf of Ciena and itself from its own funds. Yet it structured the settlement so that the payment was made by Ciena out of the proceeds of a loan from a new $20 million revolving credit facility that Allied created for Ciena. Since Allied elected to take advantage of the corporate formalities to make it appear that Allied was not paying any part of the settlement, the Tribunal should not disregard them. I also disagree with the Tribunal's statement that the "subsequent post-petition loan was irrelevant" to its conclusion that the "reduction in value [of the subsidiary] was the result of the FCA Settlement Agreement'... [because] "The Loss had already occurred." (p. 12). That is wrong. The "Loss" did not occur before Ciena made its payment to the Government. And Ciena could not make such a payment until after it drew down $14 million from Allied's post-petition revolving credit facility. Instead of being irrelevant, that loan was critical for Ciena's payment that the Tribunal now finds constitutes a "Loss" to Allied. DM
20 The PFA correctly found ( 64) that "Allied's release of its security interests did not result in any payment or transfer of the collateral to the Government, since the parties restructured the transaction into a loan to Ciena. Allied did not suffer a 'Loss" under the 2008 Policy." Moreover, it is highly relevant that Allied is carrying that loan as a performing asset on its books, not as a "Loss." DM 1,
Case 1:08-cv JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-02875-JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, 08 Civ.
More informationAre Arbitrators Right Even When They Are Wrong?: Second Circuit Upholds Arbitral Ruling Allowing Implicit Reference to Class Arbitration
Arbitration Law Review Volume 4 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 26 7-1-2012 Are Arbitrators Right Even When They Are Wrong?: Second Circuit Upholds Arbitral Ruling Allowing Implicit Reference
More informationCase 2:08-cv JSR Document 85 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 14
Case 2:08-cv-02875-JSR Document 85 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK... X LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, 08 Civ. 2875 (JSR) STERLING JEWELERS, INC.,
More informationSANLUIS DEVELOPMENTS v. CCP SANLUIS, LLC, 556 F. Supp. 2d Dist. Court, SD New York 2008
SANLUIS DEVELOPMENTS v. CCP SANLUIS, LLC, 556 F. Supp. 2d 329 - Dist. Court, SD New York 2008 556 F.Supp.2d 329 (2008) SANLUIS DEVELOPMENTS, L.L.C., Sanluis Investments, L.L.C., and Sanluis Corporación,
More informationARBITRATING INSURANCE DISPUTES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT: "CHOICE OF LAW" PROVISIONS ROLE IN FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTION OF STATE ARBITRATION LAWS
ARBITRATING INSURANCE DISPUTES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT: "CHOICE OF LAW" PROVISIONS ROLE IN FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTION OF STATE ARBITRATION LAWS I. INTRODUCTION MELICENT B. THOMPSON, Esq. 1 Partner
More informationARBITRATION RULES. Arbitration Rules Archive. 1. Agreement of Parties
ARBITRATION RULES 1. Agreement of Parties The parties shall be deemed to have made these rules a part of their arbitration agreement whenever they have provided for arbitration by ADR Services, Inc. (hereinafter
More informationx : : : : : : : : : x Plaintiffs, current and former female employees of defendant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------- LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, -v- STERLING JEWELERS, INC., Defendant. -------------------------------------
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit VICKIE H. AKERS, Claimant-Appellant, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee. 2011-7018 Appeal from the United States
More informationCase 1:15-cv NBF Document 16 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:15-cv-00342-NBF Document 16 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS THE INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. No. 15-342L
More informationUnited States District Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION AMKOR TECHNOLOGY, INC., 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v. TESSERA, INC., Petitioner(s), Respondent(s). / ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT
More informationFunctus Officio: Does the Doctrine Apply in Labor Arbitration - Teamsters Local 312 v. Matlack, Inc.
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1998 Issue 1 Article 6 1998 Functus Officio: Does the Doctrine Apply in Labor Arbitration - Teamsters Local 312 v. Matlack, Inc. Amy Markel Follow this and additional
More informationSTAR TRANSPORT, INC. NO C-1228 VERSUS C/W PILOT CORPORATION, ET AL. NO CA-1393 COURT OF APPEAL C/W * * * * * * * STAR TRANSPORT, INC.
STAR TRANSPORT, INC. VERSUS PILOT CORPORATION, ET AL. C/W STAR TRANSPORT, INC. VERSUS PILOT CORPORATION, ET AL. * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2014-C-1228 C/W NO. 2014-CA-1393 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT
More informationBanco de Seguros del Estado v. Mut. Marine Office, 344 F. 3d US: Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2003
Banco de Seguros del Estado v. Mut. Marine Office, 344 F. 3d 255 - US: Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2003 344 F.3d 255 (2003) BANCO DE SEGUROS DEL ESTADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MUTUAL MARINE OFFICE,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
In re: Jeffrey V. Howes Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE JEFFREY V. HOWES Civil Action No. ELH-16-00840 MEMORANDUM On March 21, 2016, Jeffrey V. Howes, who
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA45 Court of Appeals No. 16CA0029 El Paso County District Court No. 13DR30542 Honorable Gilbert A. Martinez, Judge In re the Marriage of Michelle J. Roth, Appellant, and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:05-cv-00725-JMS-LEK Document 32 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII In re: HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., a Hawaii corporation, Debtor. ROBERT
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, 2012
1-1-cv Bakoss v. Lloyds of London 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 01 (Submitted On: October, 01 Decided: January, 01) Docket No. -1-cv M.D.
More informationMarie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp. I. INTRODUCTION The First Circuit Court of Appeals' recent decision in Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 1 regarding the division of labor between
More informationStreamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures
RESOLUTIONS, LLC s GUIDE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures 1. Scope of Rules The RESOLUTIONS, LLC Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures ("Rules") govern binding
More informationCase 1:07-cv PAC Document 57 Filed 03/27/09 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x CLINIQUE LA PRAIRIE, S.A., : USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED
More informationNinth Circuit Denies Insurer's Gamble on Vacatur in Nevada
Arbitration Law Review Volume 3 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 18 7-1-2011 Ninth Circuit Denies Insurer's Gamble on Vacatur in Nevada Emma M. Kline Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/arbitrationlawreview
More informationGERLING GLOBAL REINSURANCE v. SOMPO JAPAN INS.
GERLING GLOBAL REINSURANCE v. SOMPO JAPAN INS. No. 04 Civ. 3060(SHS). 348 F.Supp.2d 102 (2004) GERLING GLOBAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION, U.S. Branch Plaintiff, v. SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as a successor
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-WQH -NLS Document Filed 0// Page of 0 CHINMAX MEDICAL SYSTEMS INC., a Chinese Corporation, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, ALERE SAN DIEGO, INC.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York et al v. FCE Benefit Administrators, Inc. Doc. 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION STANDARD
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION ORDER
Case 1: 1 0-cv-00386-L Y Document 53 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION FILED lon JUN -2 ~H \\: 48 JEFFREY H. REED, AN INDIVIDUAL,
More informationNOVENERGIA II ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT (SCA), SICAR (Luxembourg) ("Claimant") v. KINGDOM OF SPAIN ("Respondent") (jointly the "Parties")
NOVENERGIA II ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT (SCA), SICAR (Luxembourg) ("Claimant") v. KINGDOM OF SPAIN ("Respondent") (jointly the "Parties") PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 17 9 April 2018 Reference is made to the Respondent's
More informationThird Circuit Dismisses Crystallex s Fraudulent Transfer Claim But Potential Liability Remains for PDVSA
Third Circuit Dismisses Crystallex s Fraudulent Transfer Claim But Potential Liability Remains for PDVSA Richard J. Cooper & Boaz S. Morag 1 January 5, 2018 On January 3, 2018, the United States Court
More informationUnited States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver
United States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver By: Roland C. Goss August 31, 2015 On October 6, 2015, the second day of this
More informationCase 1:14-cv ER Document 24 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:14-cv-05656-ER Document 24 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BAGADIYA BROTHERS PVT LIMITED, Petitioner, against CHURCHGATE NIGERIA LIMITED, OPINION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).
Western National Insurance Group v. Hanlon et al Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 0 WESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, v. CARRIE M. HANLON, ESQ., et al., Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).
More informationNo. 132, September Term, 1993 PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY. [Dismissal Of An Appeal For Lack Of A Final Judgment]
No. 132, September Term, 1993 PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY [Dismissal Of An Appeal For Lack Of A Final Judgment] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 132 September Term,
More informationICDR INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION ARBITRATION RULES
APPENDIX 3.8 ICDR INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION ARBITRATION RULES (Rules Amended and Effective June 1, 2009) (Fee Schedule Amended and Effective June 1, 2010) Article 1 a. Where parties have
More informationADR CODE OF PROCEDURE
Last Revised 12/1/2006 ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE Rules & Procedures for Arbitration RULE 1: SCOPE OF RULES A. The arbitration Rules and Procedures ( Rules ) govern binding arbitration of disputes or claims
More informationFile Name: 16b0002n.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) )
By order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the precedential effect of this decision is limited to the case and parties pursuant to 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8024-1(b. See also 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8014-1(c. File Name:
More informationCase 1:15-cv MSK Document 36 Filed 03/10/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
Case 1:15-cv-00557-MSK Document 36 Filed 03/10/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 Civil Action No. 15-cv-00557-MSK In re: STEVEN E. MUTH, Debtor. STEVEN E. MUTH, v. Appellant, KIMBERLEY KROHN, Appellee. IN THE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cv JIC
Case: 16-13477 Date Filed: 10/09/2018 Page: 1 of 14 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-13477 D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cv-60197-JIC MICHAEL HISEY, Plaintiff
More informationTHE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO REMAND [19]
Case 8:14-cv-01165-DOC-VBK Document 36 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:531 Title: DONNA L. HOLLOWAY V. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL. PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE Deborah Goltz Courtroom
More informationPlaintiff-Appellant, 04 Civ (KMW) -against- OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff-Appellant John S. Pereira, as Chapter 7 Trustee
In Re: Trace International Holdings, Inc. et al Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------X In re: TRACE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
More informationCase 5:11-cv JPB Document 12 Filed 04/23/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 163
Case 5:11-cv-00160-JPB Document 12 Filed 04/23/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 163 MARTIN P. SHEEHAN, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellant, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Charlotte Division)
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Charlotte Division) In re: ) ) Chapter 7 TSI HOLDINGS, LLC, et al. ) ) Case No. 17-30132 (Jointly Administered) Debtors.
More informationDIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY BANKRUPTCY STAYS OF LITIGATION AGAINST NON-DEBTORS JUNE 12, 2003 JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN S IMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY BANKRUPTCY STAYS OF LITIGATION AGAINST NON-DEBTORS JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP JUNE 12, 2003 Most courts have held the insured versus insured exclusion
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON LAWRENCE HILL, ADAM WISE, ) NO. 66137-0-I and ROBERT MILLER, on their own ) behalves and on behalf of all persons ) DIVISION ONE similarly situated, )
More informationCase 1:13-cv AJN Document 18 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 5. Daum Global Holdings Corp. ("Petitioner" or "Daum") brings a petition, pursuant to the
Case 1:13-cv-03135-AJN Document 18 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK USDCSDNf "DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALL Y FILED DOC#: DATE F-IL-E-D---::F~E~'-B~2~C::-i
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: GREEKTOWN HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., 1 Debtors. ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 08-53104 Chapter 11 Jointly Administered Honorable
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN RE: COMPLAINT OF GLOBAL NAPs INC. : AGAINST BELL ATLANTIC - RHODE ISLAND : REGARDING RECIPROCAL COMPENSATION : DOCKET NO.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND THOMAS J. SHAW, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BECTON DICKINSON, Defendant-Appellant. 2013-1567 Appeal from the United
More informationCARLOS GÓMEZ-CRUZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARTA E. FERNÁNDEZ-PABELLÓN et al. Defendants. 3:13-cv JAW
CARLOS GÓMEZ-CRUZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARTA E. FERNÁNDEZ-PABELLÓN et al. Defendants. 3:13-cv-01711-JAW UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO October 4, 2018 ORDER REGARDING AUTOMATIC
More informationCommencing the Arbitration
Chapter 6 Commencing the Arbitration David C. Singer* 6:1 Procedural Rules Governing Commencement of Arbitration 6:1.1 Revised Uniform Arbitration Act 6:2 Applicable Rules of Arbitral Institutions 6:2.1
More informationInherent Authority of Arbitration Panels to Grant. Attorney s Fees and Costs. Robert M. Hall
Inherent Authority of Arbitration Panels to Grant Attorney s Fees and Costs By Robert M. Hall [Mr. Hall is a former law firm partner, a former insurance and reinsurance executive and acts as an expert
More informationChapter 13 Plan Cannot Avoid Lien Absent Adversary Proceeding
Chapter 13 Plan Cannot Avoid Lien Absent Adversary Proceeding Michael Buccino, J.D. Candidate 2010 Introduction In SLW Capital, LLC v. Mansaray-Ruffin (In re Mansaray-Ruffin), 530 F.3d 230, 233 (3d Cir.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 561 U. S. (2010) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationCase 3:16-cv GTS Document 14 Filed 09/11/17 Page 1 of 12
Case 3:16-cv-01372-GTS Document 14 Filed 09/11/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KEVIN J. KOHOUT; and SUSAN R. KOHOUT, v. Appellants, 3:16-CV-1372 (GTS) NATIONSTAR
More informationCM Growth Capital Partners v Penn 2018 NY Slip Op 33430(U) January 2, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge: O.
CM Growth Capital Partners v Penn 2018 NY Slip Op 33430(U) January 2, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653264/2016 Judge: O. Peter Sherwood Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationSaudi Center for Commercial Arbitration King Fahad Branch Rd, Al Mutamarat, Riyadh, KSA PO Box 3758, Riyadh Tel:
SCCA Arbitration Rules Shaaban 1437 - May 2016 Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration King Fahad Branch Rd, Al Mutamarat, Riyadh, KSA PO Box 3758, Riyadh 11481 Tel: 920003625 info@sadr.org www.sadr.org
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Freaner v. Lutteroth Valle et al Doc. 1 ARIEL FREANER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. CV1 JLS (MDD) 1 1 vs. Plaintiff, ENRIQUE MARTIN LUTTEROTH VALLE, an individual;
More informationCase CMG Doc 194 Filed 09/30/16 Entered 09/30/16 16:05:35 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 8
Document Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY United States Courthouse 402 East State Street, Room 255 Trenton, New Jersey 08608 Hon. Christine M. Gravelle 609-858-9370 United
More informationChicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements
Chicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements By Bonnie Burke, Lawrence & Bundy LLC and Christina Tellado, Reed Smith LLP Companies with employees across
More informationThe Battle Over Class Action: Second Circuit Holds that Class Action Waiver for Antitrust Actions Unenforceable Under the Federal Arbitration Act
Arbitration Law Review Volume 4 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 24 7-1-2012 The Battle Over Class Action: Second Circuit Holds that Class Action Waiver for Antitrust Actions Unenforceable
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
09-3652-ev Idea Nuova, Inc. v. GM Licensing Group, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2009 (Argued: March 24, 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010) Docket No. 09-3652-ev IDEA
More informationStruggle over Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings Continues: The Eighth Circuit Chooses Sides, The
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1991 Issue 1 Article 12 1991 Struggle over Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings Continues: The Eighth Circuit Chooses Sides, The Scott E. Blair Follow this and
More informationCase grs Doc 24 Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 11:56:43 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 11
Document Page 1 of 11 IN RE: UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON DIVISION MATTHEW AND MEAGAN HOWLAND DEBTORS CASE NO. 12-51251 PHAEDRA SPRADLIN, TRUSTEE V. BEADS AND STEEDS
More informationArkansas Supreme Court Holds Invalid Arbitration Agreement For Lack of Mutuality
Arbitration Law Review Volume 7 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 17 2015 Arkansas Supreme Court Holds Invalid Arbitration Agreement For Lack of Mutuality Nathaniel Conti Follow this and additional
More informationCommercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes)
Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes) Rules Amended and Effective October 1, 2013 Fee Schedule Amended and Effective June 1,
More informationAAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex, Commercial Disputes)
APPENDIX 4 AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex, Commercial Disputes) Commercial Mediation Procedures M-1. Agreement of Parties Whenever, by
More informationCase 1:07-cv PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:07-cv-01144-PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., AARON J. WESTRICK, Ph.D., Civil Action No. 04-0280
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT CASE NO
COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY RONALD A. YONTZ PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT CASE NO. 6-99-01 v. RONALD D. GRIFFIN, ET AL. O P I N I O N DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-20324 Document: 00514574430 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar MARK ANTHONY FORNESA; RICARDO FORNESA, JR., v. Plaintiffs
More informationFORMATION OF CONTRACT INTENTION TO BE BOUND (ART. 14 CISG) - RELEVANCE OF PRACTICES BETWEEN THE PARTIES (ART. 8(2) & (3) CISG)
FORMATION OF CONTRACT INTENTION TO BE BOUND (ART. 14 CISG) - RELEVANCE OF PRACTICES BETWEEN THE PARTIES (ART. 8(2) & (3) CISG) CHOICE-OF-LAW CLAUSE - AMOUNTING TO TERM MATERIALLY ALTERING ORIGINAL OFFER
More informationPetitioner, DECISION, ORDER AND JUDGMENT Index No.: /16 -against- Mot. Seq. No.: 001
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------X SCANOMAT A/S, Petitioner, DECISION, ORDER AND JUDGMENT Index No.:
More informationCase 1:08-cv Document 44 Filed 03/23/2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:08-cv-03009 Document 44 Filed 03/23/2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION KENNETH THOMAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 08 C 3009 ) AMERICAN
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 25, 2011 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 25, 2011 Session BANCORPSOUTH BANK v. 51 CONCRETE, LLC & THOMPSON MACHINERY COMMERCE CORPORATION Appeal from the Chancery Court of Shelby County
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION. DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv FDW
Lomick et al v. LNS Turbo, Inc. et al Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv-00296-FDW JAMES LOMICK, ESTHER BARNETT,
More information11 USC 361. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see
TITLE 11 - BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 3 - CASE ADMINISTRATION SUBCHAPTER IV - ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS 361. Adequate protection When adequate protection is required under section 362, 363, or 364 of this title of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 7:15-cv LSC.
Case: 16-14519 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Page: 1 of 13 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-14519 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 7:15-cv-02350-LSC
More informationCERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON v. BCS Ins. Co., 239 F. Supp. 2d US: Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2003
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON v. BCS Ins. Co., 239 F. Supp. 2d 812 - US: Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2003 239 F.Supp.2d 812 (2003) CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON WHO PATICIPATED IN SYNDICATES
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1054 In the Supreme Court of the United States CURTIS SCOTT, PETITIONER v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationMay 7, By: Christopher M. Mason, Steven M. Richards and Brian M. Childs
May 7, 2010 The United States Supreme Court speaks loudly in Stolt- Nielsen: The Federal Arbitration Action Act does not permit class arbitrations when the parties have been silent on the subject By: Christopher
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHAEL P. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2010 v No. 293354 Mackinac Circuit Court SHEPLER, INC., LC No. 07-006370-NO and Defendant-Appellee, CNA
More informationOF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ** GROUP, INC.,
More informationSupreme Court Rules on Bankruptcy Courts Authority, Leaves Key Question Unanswered
Westlaw Journal bankruptcy Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 11, issue 7 / july 31, 2014 Expert Analysis Supreme Court Rules on Bankruptcy Courts Authority, Leaves
More informationmg Doc 9056 Filed 08/25/15 Entered 08/25/15 15:53:55 Main Document Pg 1 of 6. Debtors.
Pg 1 of 6 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC, et al., Debtors. Case No. 12-12020 (MG) Jointly Administered ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
More informationCase 2:16-cv Document 20 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 150 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 2:16-cv-10696 Document 20 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 150 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION CMH HOMES, INC. Petitioner, v.
More informationCase 1:16-cv RMB Document 16 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:16-cv-01818-RMB Document 16 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------)( JENLOR INTERNATIONAL
More informationshl Doc 23 Filed 08/27/12 Entered 08/27/12 14:52:13 Main Document Pg 1 of 10
Pg 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x In re Chapter 11 Case No. AMR CORPORATION, et al., 11-15463 (SHL)
More informationIntroduction. The Nature of the Dispute
Featured Article Expanding the Reach of Arbitration Agreements: A Pennsylvania Federal Court Opinion Applies Principles of Agency and Contract Law to Require a Subsidiary-Reinsurer to Arbitrate Under Parent
More informationPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2107 NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal
More informationCase acs Doc 52 Filed 08/20/15 Entered 08/20/15 16:11:30 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Case 14-34747-acs Doc 52 Filed 08/20/15 Entered 08/20/15 16:11:30 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY In re: ) ) CLIFFORD J. AUSMUS ) CASE NO. 14-34747 ) CHAPTER 7
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv AT. versus
Case: 11-15587 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 1 of 16 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-15587 D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-02975-AT SOUTHERN COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES,
More informationATTORNEYS FEES IN THE AFTERMATH OF ARBITRATION. Michael J. Ryan *
ATTORNEYS FEES IN THE AFTERMATH OF ARBITRATION Michael J. Ryan * The issue of arbitrators ability to award attorneys fee has crystallized over the past three decades. There is little question today that
More informationWhen are Debtors and Creditors Bound to the Provisions of Confirmed Reorganization Plans? Gabriella Labita, J.D. Candidate 2018
When are Debtors and Creditors Bound to the Provisions of Confirmed Reorganization Plans? 2017 Volume IX No. 13 When are Debtors and Creditors Bound to the Provisions of Confirmed Reorganization Plans?
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 535 U. S. (2002) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar
Case: 15-13358 Date Filed: 03/30/2017 Page: 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-13358 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-20389-FAM, Bkcy No. 12-bkc-22368-LMI
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 10-10172 Document: 00513015487 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHESTER SHANE MCVAY, Plaintiff - Appellant United States Court of Appeals
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 8:10-cv-00543-AW Document 14 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF GLENARDEN, Plaintiff, v. Civil
More informationOVERVIEW OF CROATIAN BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM
MARIO VUKELIC, LLB, BA in Economics President to the High Commercial Court of the Republic of Croatia OVERVIEW OF CROATIAN BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM MARCH 2010 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO 1.0 Introduction.. 2
More informationINTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN NEW YORK: A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE John Fellas, Hagit Elul & Apoorva Patel Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1 2016 INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN NEW YORK: A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE John Fellas, Hagit Elul & Apoorva Patel Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Abstract This article explores the legal frameworks
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY September 18, 1998 TAZEWELL NATIONAL BANK
Present: All the Justices BILL GREEVER CORPORATION, ET AL. v. Record No. 972543 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY September 18, 1998 TAZEWELL NATIONAL BANK FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TAZEWELL COUNTY
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS. Before HAGEL, MOORMAN, and GREENBERG, Judges. O R D E R
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 11-3375 BOBBY G. SMITH, APPELLANT, V. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. Before HAGEL, MOORMAN, and GREENBERG, Judges. O R
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Triad Microsystems, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 48763 ) Under Contract No. DAAH01-84-C-0974 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationBaker & Hostetler, L.L.P. ("B&H" or "Applicant"), files its First and Final Application
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) In re: ) Case No. 01-16034 (AJG) ) ENRON CORP., et al., ) Jointly Administered ) TRUSTEES ) Chapter 11 ) FIRST AND FINAL APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE
More information