The trustees of employee stock ownership plans settled claims of breach of fiduciary duty and sought indemnification from the parent companies pursuant to contractual provisions that provide for such indemnification. An arbitrator found the indemnification agreements to be invalid under a provision of the Employment Retirement Income Act of 1974 (ERISA), which makes exculpatory agreements unenforceable. The arbitrator’s decision would doubtless be reversed if it were a court decision under the precedent of this court, because the arbitrator’s reading of the relevant section of ERISA is contrary to our precedent. But the arbitrator’s decision reasoned from the statute and the contract, and not in clear disregard of them, such that the arbitrator’s decision should not have been vacated by the district court because of the legal error of the arbitrator. Absent extraordinary circumstances, arbitration is supposed to resolve, with finality, legal as well as factual disputes.

* * *

Notwithstanding an apparent error of law, the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law in concluding that the indemnification agreement between Schafer and Block and Multiband was void as against public policy. His decision therefore should not have been vacated.

The arbitrator’s decision did not fall under any of the grounds provided by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) for vacating an arbitration award. When courts are called on to review an arbitrator’s decision, the review is very narrow; it is one of the narrowest standards of judicial review in all of American jurisprudence. Uhl, 512 F.3d at 305. Under the FAA, “a court ‘must’ confirm an arbitration award ‘unless’ it is vacated, modified, or corrected ‘as prescribed’ in §§ 10 and 11. Section 10 lists grounds for vacating an award. Hall St. Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 582 (2008).

Related Posts