Third Circuit: Ronald Cup v. Ampco Pittsburgh Corp

An order compelling arbitration, when issued while dismissing all counts in the present action, is sufficiently final for appeal.

Absent an explicit mention, employees who retired before the CBA are not integrated in the CBA   by references to other documents without an attempt to incorporate them.  As the arbitration provision requires that the matters arise under the CBA, it was error to compel arbitration.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172349p.pdf

Sixth Circuit: Jonathan Gaffers v. Kelly Servs., Inc.

Arbitration agreement is not displaced by the FLSA; a challenge to the agreements on the basis that compelling individual arbitration precludes collective action is a challenge to the purpose of arbitration, and therefore not permissible under the savings clause of the Act.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0170p-06.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Hebbronville Lone Star Rentals, et al v. Sunbelt R

Arbitrators reformation of agreement for mutual mistake exceeded the bounds of its power, as the purchase agreement limited the scope of arbitration to calculation of specific sums, and the letter of engagement's reference to threshold levels did not empower the arbitrator to revisit the agreement that set the levels.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-50613-CV0.pdf

Third Circuit: Reading Health System v. Bear Stearns Co Inc.

As the claim for arbitration as a matter of right arises from the rules and not from the broker-dealer contract, the forum selection clause in the broker-dealer contract does not prevent a court of a different forum from determining the threshold question of the right to arbitration.

Forum selection clause in the contract does not implicitly waive the right to arbitration, as absent an explicit waiver in the contract, the presumption for arbitration and the enacted regulatory scheme favor the right.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/164234p.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Bottoms Farm Partnership v. Sonny Perdue

Agency's interpretation of the statute requiring surveying of the rice fields as a condition of insurability is valid under Chevron deference; there is no implicit requirement that the policy be good farming practice.

Under the terms of the insurance contract and the governing agency's construction of its own jurisdiction, an agency submitted a binding and dispositive interpretation of the relevant guideline during the arbitration process.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172164P.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Stemcor USA Incorporated v. Cia Siderurgica do Par

District court had subject matter jurisdiction under international convention to enforce the provisional arbitration award.

Although strict compliance with a state preemptive attachment statute would allow attachments of assets allocated by arbitration award on the understanding that they were subsequently to be converted to judgment, such a showing was not made here.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-30984-CV1.pdf

DC Circuit: Republic of Argentina v. AWG Group Ltd

Arbitratrator on board of investment bank was not made evidentially partial to a party by the bank's substantial investments in it, as passive investing is distinct from an active business relationship, and the loans were an insignificant part of the bank's total portfolio.

Arbitrator's decisions on the merits were within the scope of the arbitration; finding not precluded by international conventions.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/7B9299B6A47D2BBE852582BF005095A5/$file/16-7134-1738928.pdf

Ninth Circuit: ASARCO, LLC. v. Allied Industrial and Service Workers

If an employer concedes arbitrability of a question, an arbitrator reviewing a collective agreement that prohibits changes in arbitration may reform the terms of the agreement for mutual mistake, subject to rational basis review; such reformation does not offend public policy.

Dissent:  As the arbitrator's authority arises from the collective agreement, the no-add clause stripped the arbitrator of jurisdiction sufficient to amend.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/19/16-16363.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Part-time Faculty Association v. Columbia College Chicago

Where a Board representation decision partially grounded in an interpretation of the terms of the CBA conflicts with a subsequent artbitrator's ruling on the question of representation, the latter is unenforceable as to the representation, as the parties in the second proceeding are bargaining for the arbitrator's opinion, not the Board's interpretation of the Act.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-15/C:17-3492:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:2171484:S:0

Fifth Circuit: Kimberly Huckaba v. Ref-Chem, L.P.

Under state contract law which looks to the intent of the parties, explicit statement in the arbitration agreement that it was to be signed prior to being given effect or modified meant that omission of the drafters signature meant that there was no contract.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-50341-CV0.pdf

Second Circuit: Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London v. Insurance Company

In business arbitration, party-appointed arbitrators are not limited by the usual tests of evident partiality; rather, a party seeking to challenge the outcome must establish by clear and convincing evidence an improper nondisclosure or a prejudicial impact on the award.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/406cb98d-3b23-41bf-b154-c6c24ff325e7/1/doc/17-1137-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/406cb98d-3b23-41bf-b154-c6c24ff325e7/1/hilite/

(Incertain members of Lloyds presumably limited to permissive intervention.)

Sixth Circuit: Sheet Metal Employers v. Absolut Balancing

Labor, Arbitration


Federal law governs on issues of formation relevant to CBA agreements to arbitrate.


Sheet Metal Employers v. Absolut Balancing

Fifth Circuit: Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C., et al v. Rainier Capital Mg

Arbitration, FRCP, securities


A stay of the litigation pending compulsory arbitration is at the discretion of the court, and where the legal issues are distinct from those being arbitrated, although both arise from the same transaction or series of transactions, the proceedings may continue, simultaneous with the arbitration.

No genuine issue of material fact as to whether a partnership was created by estoppel in securities
memorandum, given that there was no evidence that the relevant parties were aware of the statements.

Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C., et al v. Rainier Capital Mg

Seventh Circuit: William Charles Construction v. Teamsters Local Union 627

Labor Law, Statute of Limitations, Arbitration

Clock did not begin to run on the time to challenge a decision of a committee authorized by a CBA until the movant received a copy of the notice of decision at the commencement of litigation.
.
Where a contract explicitly supersedes the CBA and establishes an exclusive remedy, party is not bound by CBA arbitration outcome.

Special appearance at arbitration to dispute its validity does not establish consent to arbitration.

William Charles Construction v.   Teamsters Local Union 627

Second Circuit: Leeward Construction Co. v. American University of Antigua

Arbitration

Where arbitrator commits in initial proceedings to issue a reasoned award, a reasoned award is required.

While an arbitrator's reasoned award need not delve into every argument raised or provide a line-by-line justification for the award, it must set forth relevant facts and factual findings.

Arguing for the original profit margins on the deal is at least a barely colorable justification for the award of same based on bad faith, which is all that is required.

Leeward Construction Co. v. American University of Antigua

Second Circuit: N.Y.C. & Vicinity Dist. Council of the United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Ass’n

Labor Law, Arbitration

When an employer organization has an agreement with an International union, and that agreement contradicts elements of the Local's court-supervised contract, an arbitration award allowing the employers to follow the agreement with the International is within socpe, entitled to deference, and does not violate public policy.

The arbitrator's finding does present a question of whether the court-approved Local contract was approved with insufficient information.

N.Y.C. & Vicinity Dist. Council of the United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Ass’n

Fourth Circuit:James Hayes v. Delbert Services Corporation

Arbitration, Choice of Law, Tribe Law

Loan agreement arbitration clause electing the forum and law of the Sioux nation is invalid and unenforceable, as it operates as a waiver of all federal rights.

Not severable from arbitration provision.

No need to exhaust tribal remedies, as the controversy has nothing to do with the tribe.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/151170.P.pdf

Second Circuit: Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Team Tankers A.S.

Arbitration, fees

Arbitration did not disregard law.

Although arbitrator's nondisclosure if illness violated the rules of the arbitration, insufficient for vacatur.

Fee-shifting to prevailing party vacated, as consent to arbitration implies consent to challenge in court of competent jurisdiction and if it doesn't, it's unenforcable.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/2/doc/14-4036_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/2/hilite/

Second Circuit: Credit Suisse Secs. LLC v. Tracy, et al.

FINRA, Arbitration

FINRA arbitration code does not bar voluntary pre-dispute waiver of FINRA arbitral forum.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/3/doc/15-345_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/3/hilite/

Third Circuit: Elnor Whitehead v. Pullman Group LLC

Arbitration

Arbitrator's likely application of statute precluding testimony about unrecorded transactions with deceased party was not an error sufficient to vacate the arbitration.

As the arbitrator likely filtered out barred testimony, opposing party's use of spoken parole evidence to the contrary didn't open the door to use by plaintff.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/151627p.pdf