| | |
establishes that "a party seeking to vacate an arbitration award | | on the ground of 'manifest disregard of the law' may not proceed | | by merely objecting to the results of the arbitration." O.R. | | Securities, Inc. v. Professional Planning Associates, Inc., 857 | | F.2d 742, 747 (11th Cir. 1988). "Manifest disregard of the law" | | "clearly means more than [an arbitral] error or misunderstanding | | with respect to the law." Carte Blanche (Singapore) PTE Ltd. v. | | Carte Blanche Int'l., 888 F.2d 260, 265 (2d Cir. 1989) (quoting | | Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bobker, 808 F.2d | | 930, 933 (2d Cir. 1986)). |
|
| | | The numerous other articulations of the "manifest disregard of | | law" standard reflected in the circuit appeals court case law | | reveal its two constituent elements. One element looks to the | | result reached in arbitration and evaluates whether it is | | clearly consistent or inconsistent with controlling law. For | | this element to be satisfied, a reviewing court must conclude | | that the arbitrator misapplied the relevant law touching upon | | the dispute before the arbitrator in a manner that constitutes | | something akin to a blatant, gross error of law that is | | apparent on the face of the award. |
|
| | | The other element of the "manifest disregard of the law" | | standard requires a reviewing court to evaluate the | | arbitrator's knowledge of the relevant law. Even if a | | reviewing court finds a clear error of law, vacatur is | | warranted under the "manifest disregard of the law" ground | | only if the court is able to conclude that the arbitrator knew | | the correct law but nevertheless "made a conscious decision" | | to ignore it in fashioning the award. See M&C Corp. v. Erwin | | Behr & Co., 87 F.3d 844, 851 (6th Cir. 1996). For a full | | discussion of the "manifest disregard of the law" standard, | | see Stephen L. Hayford, Reining in the Manifest Disregard of | | the Law Standard: The Key to Stabilizing the Law of Commercial | | Arbitration, 1999 J. Disp. Resol. 117. |
|
| | | 3. The origin and essence of the "public policy" ground for | | vacatur is well captured in the Tenth Circuit's opinion in | | Seymour v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 988 F.2d 1020,1023 (10th | | Cir. 1993). Seymour observed: "[I]n determining whether an | | arbitration award violates public policy, a court must assess | | whether 'the specific terms contained in [the contract] | | violate public policy, by creating an 'explicit conflict with | | other 'laws and legal precedents.''" Id. at 1024 (citing | | United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29, 43 | | (1987)). |
|
| | | Like the "manifest disregard of the law" nonstatutory ground, | | vacatur under the "public policy" ground requires something | | more than a mere error or misunderstanding of the relevant law | | by the arbitrator. Under all of the articulations of this | | nonstatutory ground, the public policy at issue must be a | | clearly defined, |
|
|
