Question..Have you researched prior successful attempts to Vacate a ICC Arbitral Award? TIA
Arbitration Clause That Limited Challenge to Arbitration Award Enforced
July 28, 2005 / ADR Institute Editor
The parties' agreement that expressly limited the review of an arbitral award was enforced, and extreme deference was given to judicial review of that award, according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Communications Consultant, Inc. v. Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc., 2005 WL 1634319 (3rd Cir. 2005)(Westlaw registration required), Nextel appealed from an order confirming an arbitration award in favor of Communications Consultant, Inc. (CCI), arguing that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by ignoring applicable law.
The Court noted that judicial review of arbitral awards is "extremely deferential' and vacatur is appropriate in "exceedingly narrow circumstances, such as where arbitrators are partial or corrupt, or where an arbitration panel manifestly disregards, rather than merely erroneously interprets, the law." Quoting the United States Supreme Court on deference to arbitral awards, an arbitrator's "'improvident, even silly, fact finding' does not provide a basis for a reviewing court to refuse to enforce the award." Major League Baseball Players Ass'n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509 (2001)(Westlaw registration required).
In addition to the highly deferential approach to arbitral awards, the parties themselves agreed in their arbitration clause to limit challenges: "[t]he decision of the arbitrators shall be final and unreviewable for error of law or legal reasoning of any kind...."
With this language, the only basis for challenging the arbitral award would have been a showing of "corruption, fraud, or partiality or that the panel failed to provide a hearing to consider each party's views prior to issuing its decision." Since these circumstances did not occur, the Court held that the language of the arbitration provision foreclosed the arguments raised by Nextel in this appeal.
However, even if the Court could have considered Nextel's arguments, they still would have rejected their claims. The arbitrators did not ignore contract language when they reached an alternate conclusion as to its meaning. Further, the arbitrators did not ignore state law when they applied a Virginia Supreme Court decision and distinguished the trial court decision relied upon by Nextel. The Court stated, "Nextel may disagree with the approach reflected in the arbitration panel's award decision, but it is plain that the panel did not 'manifestly disregard' Virginia law."
I'll never understand.....
this board. People speculate and speculate that Nokia will capitulate on monday and not contest the award. Why are people so willing to ignore the facts. IDCC and Nokia have already jointly said in a court filing that Nokia told IDCC that it "intends on" and "will" contest the award. The parties have jointly filed a report with the court establishing a schedule for briefing the motion to vacate. These are the only facts we know. Is it possible that after years of litigation and adversarial briefs the parties came together in the last few days? Sure. But, anything is possible. The facts show taht the substantial likelihood is a filing on monday. To not disappoint yourselves, be prepared.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
