Post-Arbitration Judicial Proceedings: Implementing Badgerow v. Walters and Returning to State Court

How Badgerow May Shift the Balance of Power When Vacating or Confirming an Arbitration Award

A live 90-minute CLE video webinar with interactive Q&A

This program is included with the Strafford CLE Pass. Click for more information.
This program is included with the Strafford All-Access Pass. Click for more information.

Thursday, June 16, 2022

1:00pm-2:30pm EDT, 10:00am-11:30am PDT

Early Registration Discount Deadline, Friday, May 27, 2022

or call 1-800-926-7926

This CLE webinar will explore the significant changes in post-arbitration proceedings after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143 (Mar. 31, 2022), rejecting "look through" federal jurisdiction. The program will discuss how the nature of post-arbitration review has been altered and what moving a substantial number of petitions for confirmation or vacatur off the dockets of federal courts and onto those of state courts means. The program will offer insights about what practitioners should consider, including where they can obtain either confirmation or vacatur of an arbitration award.

Description

Following a completed arbitration, one or both parties involved typically seek judicial review of the arbitral order: 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. As a result, many post-arbitration proceedings have commenced in federal court.

The FAA does not give federal subject matter jurisdiction to federal courts in post-arbitration proceedings nor tell federal courts how to analyze whether they might have jurisdiction. Thus, different circuit courts developed different approaches. On Mar. 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Badgerow v. Walters, resolving this split in authority.

The Court's decision, grounded in Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA, rejects the "look-through" approach for determining whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a post-arbitration petition. But Badgerow does more than resolve the split in authority: The Court's holding 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.

READ MORE

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?

Faculty

Jaroff, Aaron
Aaron F. Jaroff

Partner
McGuireWoods

Mr. Jaroff focuses his practice on financial services litigation, advising a wide variety of commercial and investment...  |  Read More

Kutrow, Bradley
Bradley R. Kutrow

Partner
McGuireWoods

Mr. Kutrow is a partner in the firm's Financial Services Litigation Department and is co-chair of the firm's...  |  Read More

Madrid, Alexander
Alexander M. Madrid

Partner
McGuireWoods

Mr. Madrid has a broad range of litigation and regulatory experience representing financial institutions and other...  |  Read More

Attend on June 16

Early Discount (through 05/27/22)

Cannot Attend June 16?

Early Discount (through 05/27/22)

You may pre-order a recording to listen at your convenience. Recordings are available 48 hours after the webinar. Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include course handouts.

To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video

Download