In denying Idea Nuova’s motion to vacate or modify, and granting GM’s cross-motion for confirmation, the Court noted that manifest disregard of the law is still a valid basis upon which a party may challenge an arbitral award, finding that it “survives” the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 1396 (2008), “primarily as a ‘judicial gloss on the specific grounds for vacatur enumerated in section 10 of the FAA.” Notably, the District Court reached this conclusion by relying upon the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008), for which certiorari was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 15th. The Second Circuit found in Stolt-Nielsen that, despite Hall Street, the law with regard to challenging arbitral awards based upon manifest disregard of the law has not changed–that is, an award can be vacated or modified if a party proves that an arbitrator “knew of a relevant legal principle, appreciated that this principle controlled the outcome of the disputed issue, and nonetheless flouted the governing law by refusing to apply it.” 548 F.3d at 95.
It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court reviews this prong of the Stolt-Nielsen decision. We will continue to follow this issue on www.insurereinsure.com.
