2 Brief of Petitioner–Appellant at 5, ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. EMC Nat’l Life Co., 564 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2009) (No. 07–0828–cv), 2007 WL 6813453.
3Id. at 6.
7Id.; 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) (“(a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for die district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration . . . (4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.”).
8 ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. EMC Nat’l Life Co., 473 F.Supp. 2d 607, 609 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
9 Quoting Banco de Seguros del Estado v. Mut. Marine Office, Inc., 344 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir. 2003).
17 LaSalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Nomura Asset Capital Corp., 424 F.3d 195, 206 (2d Cir. 2005).
18 Citing Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 460 F.3d 400,407 (2d Cir. 2006) (Under New York law, “a covenant of good faith and fair dealing” is implicit in every contract.).
19Cking, Galli v. Metz, 973 F.2d145, 149 (2d Cir. 1992) (noting that” [u]nder New York law, an interpretation of a contract that has the effect of rendering at least one clause superfluous or meaningless . . . is not preferred and will be avoided if possible” (quotation marks omitted)).
20 For what it is worth, the arbitration award compensated ReliaStar only for damages from National Travelers’ bad faith actions in the arbitration proceedings, not from its alleged bad faith breach of the Coinsurance Agreements. See Brief of Petitioner–Appellant, supra note 2, at 6.
21See generallyWilliam, W. Park, Procedural Evolution in Business Arbitration: Three Studies in Change, inArbitration of International Business Disputes: Studies In Law and Practice1 (2006) (“The prevailing orthodoxy, of course, says that flexibility strengthens arbitration, and that arbitrators should have wide discretion to do what best fits each individual case.”); Jean–Francois, Poudret & Sébastien, Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration §6.1.2 (2d ed. 2007) (“The arbitrators are not obliged to define from the outset all the rules governing the conduct of arbitral proceedings and can establish norms during the course of the proceedings if difficulties are encountered.”).
22See, e.g., Case C–185/07, Allianz SpA v. West Tankers Inc. (Eur. Ct. Justice Feb. 10, 2009).
23 For discussion of asymmetries in investor–state arbitrations, see Thomas, W. Walde, Procedural Challenges in Investment Arbitration Under the Shadow of the Dual Role of the State: Asymmetries and Tribunals’ Pro–active Duty to Ensure the Equality of Arms,26 Arb. Int’l (forthcoming 2010); Abba, Kolo, Witness Intimidation in Investment Arbitration: What Remedies Are Available to the Arbitral Tribunal?26 Arb. Int’l (forthcoming 2010).
Recommend this journal
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.