A federal court in Oklahoma upheld an arbitral award and rejected a public policy challenge where there was no violation of clearly expressed law. The Court also rejected the claim that the arbitrators exceeded their power by issuing an award against a non-signatory.

In Legacy Trading Co., Ltd. v. Hoffman, No. CIV-07-1383-M, 2008 WL 3876034 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 18, 2008), Hoffman, a securities trader, filed an arbitration claim against Legacy Trading and Uselton (collectively, Legacy) for an alleged breach of his employment contract. An arbitrator found Legacy and Uselton jointly and severally liable to Hoffman. Legacy moved to vacate the award.

The Court rejected Legacy’s argument that the decision was against Oklahoma public policy. Specifically, the Court found that no clearly expressed Oklahoma law was violated by the decision. If a contract was not formed at all, as Legacy claimed, then specific terms of such a contract could not have been violated. Moreover, no legal precedent involving contract or corporate law was offered by Legacy in support of vacating the award for reasons of public policy.

The Court also rejected Legacy’s contention that the arbitrators exceeded their power, holding that that the arbitration panel's broad grant of authority should include decisions concerning jurisdiction over a party. As the Court noted, the arbitrators’ authority extended to "decisions concerning jurisdiction over a party and decisions of law, even if those decisions are later found to be erroneous." Further, no convincing evidence was offered to substantiate the claim that the arbitrators exceeded their powers.