Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Arbitration awards are subject to limited judicial review. May parties contract to further limit the review afforded by courts to an award? The Second Circuit ruled parties may not seek to lower the standard of review of an arbitration award to be applied by a court. Hoeft v. MVL Group, 343 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 9/3/03) (Parker, Raggi, and Goldberg, Cir. Judges).
The parties' arbitration agreement selected an arbitrator and provided that his decision “shall not be subject to any type of review or appeal whatsoever.” The arbitrator awarded $1.4 million in damages to the prevailing party and the losing party challenged the award. The district court vacated the award, finding that the arbitrator's award was issued in manifest disregard of the law. On appeal, the prevailing party argued that the arbitration agreement barred judicial review of the award.
The Second Circuit rejected this claim, ruling that parties may not eliminate the limited judicial review afforded arbitration awards. The court noted that Congress in the Federal Arbitration Act imposed critical safeguards on private dispute resolution mechanisms while providing parties with flexibility in the process. “This balance would be eviscerated, and the integrity of the arbitration process could be compromised, if parties could require that awards, flawed for any of [the reasons set forth in the FAA], must nevertheless be blessed by federal courts.” The court declined to rule, however, whether parties, by contract, could enhance the level of review of such awards rather than seek to deny courts the minimum review standards imposed by Congress.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.