|
Confirmation of an arbitration award cannot be challenged without proper and relevant evidence that would support the specific statutory grounds for vacatur or modification of an award, according to a federal district court in Kentucky.
In Buechner v. Mid-America Energy, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-109, 2007 WL 2174723 (W.D. Ky. July 27, 2007), Buechner sued Mid-America and others for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and various statutory violations under several security contracts.
The matter was submitted to binding arbitration in accordance with the agreements, which resulted in an award in favor of Buechner. After Mid-America failed to pay the award, Buechner sought confirmation of the award. The Court confirmed the arbitration award, holding that Mid-America failed to submit any evidence that would support its opposition to confirmation.
First, the Court rejected Mid-America's argument that the award should be overturned based on a "misjoinder of parties," noting that Mid-America had not named any points of law that the arbitrator purposefully refused to follow, and that the argument did not fit within the statutory grounds for vacation or modification of the award.
Next, the Court refused to find that Buechner did not follow the dispute resolution procedures contained in the partnership agreement, observing that the subscription agreements explicitly provided for binding arbitration, and, even had they not, Mid-America foreclosed that argument by not objecting to the matter's arbitrability during the arbitration.
Finally, the Court found that Mid-America's various allegations that the arbitrator did not properly consider certain types of evidence were beyond the court's scope of review. The Court also failed to see how any of mistakes alleged by Mid-America could have resulted in a "fundamentally unfair hearing" that would warrant vacating the award.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|