BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Class Action and Other Litigation

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Thursday, June 16, 2022

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$297.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will explore the significant changes in post-arbitration proceedings after the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection in Badgerow of "look through" federal jurisdiction. The program will address how the nature of post-arbitration review has been altered and what moving a substantial number of petitions for confirmation or vacatur off federal court dockets and onto those of state courts means. The program will offer insights about what practitioners should consider, including where to pursue either confirmation or vacatur of an arbitration award.

Faculty

Alexander M. Madrid
Partner
Mcguire Woods LLP

Mr. Madrid has a broad range of litigation and regulatory experience representing financial institutions and other corporate clients, with a specific focus on representing broker-dealers in regulatory and enforcement actions, arbitration, and litigation.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Aaron F. Jaroff
Partner
Mcguire Woods LLP

Mr. Jaroff focuses his practice on financial services litigation, advising a wide variety of commercial and investment banking institutions, corporations, funds, and individuals in all phases of complex commercial and securities matters. He has represented corporate and financial sector clients in both class and individual actions in state, federal, and bankruptcy courts, arbitration, and in regulatory and internal investigations. Mr. Jaroff also has a robust practice counseling businesses, funds and portfolio companies, lenders, independent sponsors, and financial advisors in post-acquisition and contractual disputes, with experience litigating claims on behalf of both buyers and sellers and in connection with representation and warranty insurance coverage.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Bradley R. Kutrow
Partner
Mcguire Woods LLP

Mr. Kutrow is a partner in the firm's Financial Services Litigation Department and is co-chair of the firm's Appeals and Issues group. He has broad experience in complex litigation, with emphasis on business torts, finance, securities, and products liability. Mr. Kutrow is listed in The Best Lawyers in America in seven different litigation categories: Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Banking and Finance, Securities, Personal Injury, Product Liability, and First Amendment. His clients include banks, financial services firms and manufacturers.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

After a completed arbitration, one or both parties involved often seek judicial review of the arbitrator’s award: the prevailing party to confirm and the losing party to vacate. These post-arbitration filings are usually governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which narrowly circumscribes judicial review of the arbitration award. So parties seek post-arbitration review in federal court.

But the FAA does itself confer federal subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts for post-arbitration proceedings or tell federal courts how to analyze whether they actually have jurisdiction. Different circuit courts have developed different analytical approaches. On Mar. 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143, resolving this circuit split.

The Court's decision, grounded in FAA Sections 9 and 10, rejects the "look-through" approach for determining whether federal jurisdiction exists over a post-arbitration petition. But Badgerow does more than resolve the split in authority: it places state courts at the heart of post-arbitration proceedings.

The practical effect of Badgerow is that parties will more frequently be required to file post-arbitral motions in state court, even if an initial motion to compel arbitration was adjudicated in federal court. The Court's decision explicitly endorses this result, noting that "enforcement of the Act ... is left in large part to the state courts."

Listen as this experienced panel of litigators discusses how the Badgerow decision is expected to alter arbitration proceedings, what counsel must consider when seeking to compel arbitration, and how to enforce or challenge a resulting decision.

Outline

  1. The bases for confirming an arbitral award
    1. The bases for seeking vacatur of an arbitral award
    2. Arbitrator bias
    3. Arbitrators exceeding their authority
    4. Arbitrator refusal to hear pertinent evidence
  2. Cross-petitions for confirmation and vacatur
  3. Jurisdictional and procedural issues in seeking judicial review of an arbitral award
  4. Timing limitations
  5. Seeking further review by an appellate court

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • Are federal courts available to confirm or vacate arbitration awards?
  • Can post-judgment relief procedures be used to alter arbitration awards?
  • How will counsel need to adjust their strategies for post-arbitration proceedings in state court?
  • What should counsel consider when seeking appellate review?
  • When does a federal court have an "independent jurisdictional basis" to petition a federal court for arbitral relief?