|
Challenges to arbitration awards are
routinely denied, but the Jonas decision raises
unusually interesting arguments in favor of vacating the
arbitrator’s decision, none of which persuaded the
court. First, the court rejected the contention that
arbitrators from the National Association of Securities
Dealers were biased, because they were subject to being
stricken from panels by securities dealers. The court
noted that plaintiffs’ lawyers also have the right to
strike arbitrators from panels.
Second, the court rejected the contention
that the panel improperly refused to hear evidence by
refusing to allow the plaintiff’s attorney to submit
copies of cases to support her arguments. The court
concluded that it had “no clue as to whether the
arbitrators |
|
correctly understood” the
applicable statute, but that where an arbitration award
cannot be vacated for clear errors of law, neither can
it be vacated due to arbitrator ignorance of the law.
Finally, the court rejected the
plaintiff’s myriad challenges to the panel’s evidentiary
rulings. The court held that the statutory provision,
allowing review of decisions to determine whether the
panel “refused to hear evidence material to the
controversy . . . as to prejudice substantially the
rights of the party,” did not empower the court to
review individual evidentiary rulings. Rather, it
required that each party be given “the right to be
heard, to present evidence material to the controversy
and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the
hearing.”
 |
