|
An appellate Court in Ohio upheld an arbitration award over an allegation that the award was procured by fraud.
In Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Masek, No. 2006-T-0052, 2007 WL 1395360 (Ohio Ct. App.11d May 11, 2007), Raymond Masek brought a securities claim against a Citigroup predecessor in 2002 and an award was issued against Masek after an arbitration hearing. An additional arbitration was held regarding different matters between Masek and Citigroup in 2005. The second hearing also resulted in an award against Masek.
Citigroup moved to confirm the awards and Masek moved to vacate. The trial court granted Citigroup's motion and Masek appealed, alleging that the trial court failed to consider evidence of fraudulent witness testimony during the second arbitration hearing. Masek offered no reasons to vacate the first award aside from an argument that the motion to confirm was untimely.
The Court rejected Masek's argument that the trial court erred in confirming the arbitration awards. In regards to the 2002 award, Masek was required to file a motion to vacate within three months of the award's issuance. See R.C. 2711.13. But the Court determined that the one-year rule to confirm awards was permissive, and could be filed later if there was no prejudice to the challenging party. Further, he offered no basis by which to vacate the 2002 award. As such, the first award was upheld.
Regarding the 2005 award, Masek failed to show a basis for a claim of fraud that would lead to vacatur of the award. Although Masek pointed to phone records that he alleged would have directly impeached the testimony of a Citigroup employee as support for fraud argument, he did not raise the issue until his attempt to vacate the award. He failed to demonstrate that the phone records were used in cross-examination. Thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion in confirming the arbitration awards, and the Court affirmed the judgment.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|