About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



Case Citations [1] (Fall 2024)

handle is hein.ali/aliuslaw0036 and id is 1 raw text is: 





                          THE AMERICAN


                          LAW INSTITUTE



                                  Fall 2024 Citations



          THE U.S. LAW OF INTERNATIONAL

        COMMERCIAL AND INVESTOR-STATE

                             ARBITRATION



                         CHAPTER 4.   POST-AWARD RELIEF

                   TOPIC  2. GROUNDS   FOR  POST-AWARD RELIEF

     SUBTOPIC  (B) GROUNDS   FOR  VACATUR OF U.S.   CONVENTION AWARDS AND
   DENYING   RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF NON-CONVENTION AWARDS

§ 4.19. Arbitrator Misconduct

Conn.2023. Illus. 3 quot. in diss. op. (quoting § 4.19, illus. 3 of Prop. Final Draft, 2019, which is now §
4.13, illus. 3 of the Official Text). Manager of investment funds commenced arbitration proceedings
against former employee who allegedly misappropriated millions of dollars from plaintiff and its
investors. Noting that employee had previously fled to India to avoid prosecution in two civil-fraud
actions filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, one of which was related to the arbitration,
the arbitrator granted employer's motion for an order applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to
prevent employee from asserting any counterclaims or defenses, contesting employer's allegations, or
viewing the evidence against him, and issued an award in favor of employer. The trial court denied
employee's motion to vacate the award and granted employer's motion to confirm the award. This court
affirmed. The dissenting opinion cited the Restatement of the U.S. Law of International Commercial and
Investor-State Arbitration § 4.19 in arguing that the award had to be vacated because it was the duty of
an arbitrator to permit employee to be heard before making an award and the arbitrator did not conduct a
hearing on the merits of employer's claims against employee before unilaterally applying the doctrine.
Ahmed v. Oak Management Corporation, 302 A.3d 850, 901.





                         COPYRIGHT (02024 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE
                                     All rights reserved
                                Printed in the United States of America
         For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.