The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source

Log In / Register | Apr 24, 2014

"Manifest Disregard" Alive In 4th Circuit

Ultimately the Supreme Court is going to have to decide this one. The score is now 5-5 with one abstaining.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that "manifest disregard" of the law is still a grounds for arbitral vacatur even after Stolt-Nielsen and Hall Street.

The circuits are now split on the issue, and SCOTUS will likely have to settle the dispute.

Given the strong pro-arbitration stance of the Court, it is difficult to see the current Court restricting arbitral discretion, but there has been a growing backlash against the pro-arbitral jurisprudence of the last 30 years.

Current circuit status is:

"Who cares about the law? The arbitrator is God."--

  • First Circuit   Ramos-Santiago v. UPS, 524 F.3d 120
  • Fifth Circuit   Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. Bacon, 562 F.3d 349
  • Seventh Circuit   Affymax Inc. v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 660 F.3d 281
  • Eighth Circuit   Medicine Shoppe Intern., Inc. v. Turner Investments, Inc., 614 F.3d 485
  • Eleventh Circuit   Frazier v. CitiFinancial Corp., 604 F.3d 1313

"The arbitrator may be God, but I'm a Judge and so I am pulling rank."--

  • Second Circuit   Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, 646 F.3d 113
  • Fourth Circuit   Wachovia Securities v Brand
  • Sixth Circuit   Coffee Beanery Ltd. v. WW, LLC., 300 F. App’x 415
  • Ninth Circuit   Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp., __ F.3d __
  • Tenth Circuit   Lynch v. Whitney, 419 Fed. Appx. 826

"SCOTUS created this mess, and we're staying out of it."--

  • Third Circuit   Rite Aid New Jersey, Inc. v. UFCW
Wachovia Securities v Brand OPINION 16Feb2012.pdf86.14 KB
No votes yet