Harshitha Ram
This article is the eleventh installment in a 12-part series on domestic arbitration, offering a clear and practical roadmap through each stage of the process.
In this edition, Post-Award Issues: Challenging, Modifying, or Confirming the Award, we turn to the critical post-award phase—examining the limited grounds for challenging or vacating an award, the circumstances for modifying it, and the process for confirming the award in court. Stay tuned for Part 12: “Enforcing and Collecting Arbitration Awards: Practical Steps” coming next month.
Even after an arbitrator issues an award, the story isn’t always over. Post-award proceedings—whether to challenge, modify, or confirm—determine whether the award truly achieves finality and enforceability. For practitioners, understanding this stage is essential to protecting client interests and ensuring arbitration fulfills its promise of efficiency.
Arbitration’s Promise of Finality
Finality is one of arbitration’s strongest selling points. Parties often choose arbitration to avoid years of appeals and procedural skirmishes typical of litigation. But finality does not mean the award is beyond scrutiny.
Domestic arbitration law, guided by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and parallel state statutes, permits only limited judicial oversight. Courts consistently emphasize that arbitration is not a substitute court system; oversight exists solely to protect fairness and integrity. The U.S. Supreme Court underscored this in Hall Street Associates v. Mattel, Inc. (2008), holding that the statutory grounds for vacating or modifying an award are exclusive. This decision shut the door on attempts to expand judicial review and confirmed arbitration’s status as a final and binding process. Hall Street is often cited when a losing party tries to argue for broader judicial review, or when parties draft arbitration agreements that attempt to build in appeals-like review. It makes clear: arbitration is binding and limited in review — you cannot draft around that under the FAA.
Challenging the Award
A losing party may attempt to vacate an award, but the hurdles are high. The FAA allows vacatur only where corruption, fraud, or undue means infected the award; where arbitrators showed evident partiality or corruption; where misconduct deprived a party of a fair hearing; or where arbitrators exceeded their powers. These grounds are construed narrowly. In Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter (2013), the Supreme Court declined to vacate an award authorizing class arbitration, even though the reasoning was widely questioned. The Court emphasized that as long as the arbitrator was “arguably construing the contract,” judicial review could not second-guess the decision. This reality means vacatur is rare. Mere errors of fact or law—even glaring ones—are insufficient. Practitioners must advise clients candidly: challenging an award is a long shot and should be pursued only when clear statutory grounds exist. Oxford Health Plans reaffirms that arbitration is not appeal-lite. Courts will not step in to correct what they view as legal or interpretive errors. For practitioners, it means: if you want to bar class arbitration (or any specific procedure), your arbitration clause must say so explicitly—because arbitrators’ interpretations will stand with little judicial recourse.
Modifying or Correcting the Award:
Some post-award issues involve not undoing the decision but fixing mistakes. The FAA allows courts to modify or correct an award when there are evident miscalculations, material mistakes in describing parties or property, or imperfections of form that do not affect the merits. Consider an award that miscalculates damages by transposing numbers, or mistakenly identifies the wrong corporate entity. Courts may correct such errors without disturbing the core decision. These provisions acknowledge that human error is inevitable, while preserving the efficiency and legitimacy of the arbitral process.
Confirming the Award
The most common post-award step is confirmation. Under Section 9 of the FAA, a court must confirm an award unless there are grounds for vacatur or modification. Confirmation transforms the arbitrator’s decision into a court judgment, enforceable through garnishment, liens, or execution. An arbitrator’s award alone has persuasive authority but not coercive force. Judicial confirmation gives the award real teeth. Courts typically treat confirmation as a ministerial act, intervening only if one of the narrow statutory defenses applies. This process ensures arbitration outcomes carry the same weight as court judgments.
Timing and Procedure
Timeframes in post-award proceedings are strict. A motion to vacate, modify, or correct must be filed within three months after the award is delivered. By contrast, a motion to confirm may be filed within one year.
Missing these deadlines can foreclose options entirely, reinforcing the need for diligence. These timelines reflect a broader policy goal: to ensure certainty and prevent arbitration from spiraling into extended litigation.
Strategic Considerations
The post-award stage demands careful strategy. For prevailing parties, promptly moving to confirm secures enforceability and guards against delay tactics. For losing parties, pursuing vacatur requires clear-eyed evaluation of the slim chances of success. Lawyers should also emphasize precision in arbitration clauses and in the drafting of awards, since ambiguities can invite unnecessary post-award disputes. An arbitrator’s award may feel like the finish line, but post-award proceedings determine whether it achieves enforceable finality. Domestic arbitration law provides only narrow avenues for vacatur, limited opportunities for modification, and a straightforward path for confirmation. For practitioners, mastering this stage is essential to safeguarding client interests and ensuring arbitration fulfills its central promise: delivering a fair, efficient, and binding resolution.
__________________
Harshitha Ram is an international disputes attorney, arbitrator, mediator, and lecturer in law. She is the President of the Global Arbitration Mediation Academy (GAMA), Chair of the ADR Section of the DBA, and the Co-Chair of the ABA Arbitration Committee.
To learn more or connect, visit: www.harshitharam.com or www.adracademy.us
In this edition, Post-Award Issues: Challenging, Modifying, or Confirming the Award, we turn to the critical post-award phase—examining the limited grounds for challenging or vacating an award, the circumstances for modifying it, and the process for confirming the award in court. Stay tuned for Part 12: “Enforcing and Collecting Arbitration Awards: Practical Steps” coming next month.
Even after an arbitrator issues an award, the story isn’t always over. Post-award proceedings—whether to challenge, modify, or confirm—determine whether the award truly achieves finality and enforceability. For practitioners, understanding this stage is essential to protecting client interests and ensuring arbitration fulfills its promise of efficiency.
Arbitration’s Promise of Finality
Finality is one of arbitration’s strongest selling points. Parties often choose arbitration to avoid years of appeals and procedural skirmishes typical of litigation. But finality does not mean the award is beyond scrutiny.
Domestic arbitration law, guided by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and parallel state statutes, permits only limited judicial oversight. Courts consistently emphasize that arbitration is not a substitute court system; oversight exists solely to protect fairness and integrity. The U.S. Supreme Court underscored this in Hall Street Associates v. Mattel, Inc. (2008), holding that the statutory grounds for vacating or modifying an award are exclusive. This decision shut the door on attempts to expand judicial review and confirmed arbitration’s status as a final and binding process. Hall Street is often cited when a losing party tries to argue for broader judicial review, or when parties draft arbitration agreements that attempt to build in appeals-like review. It makes clear: arbitration is binding and limited in review — you cannot draft around that under the FAA.
Challenging the Award
A losing party may attempt to vacate an award, but the hurdles are high. The FAA allows vacatur only where corruption, fraud, or undue means infected the award; where arbitrators showed evident partiality or corruption; where misconduct deprived a party of a fair hearing; or where arbitrators exceeded their powers. These grounds are construed narrowly. In Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter (2013), the Supreme Court declined to vacate an award authorizing class arbitration, even though the reasoning was widely questioned. The Court emphasized that as long as the arbitrator was “arguably construing the contract,” judicial review could not second-guess the decision. This reality means vacatur is rare. Mere errors of fact or law—even glaring ones—are insufficient. Practitioners must advise clients candidly: challenging an award is a long shot and should be pursued only when clear statutory grounds exist. Oxford Health Plans reaffirms that arbitration is not appeal-lite. Courts will not step in to correct what they view as legal or interpretive errors. For practitioners, it means: if you want to bar class arbitration (or any specific procedure), your arbitration clause must say so explicitly—because arbitrators’ interpretations will stand with little judicial recourse.
Modifying or Correcting the Award:
Some post-award issues involve not undoing the decision but fixing mistakes. The FAA allows courts to modify or correct an award when there are evident miscalculations, material mistakes in describing parties or property, or imperfections of form that do not affect the merits. Consider an award that miscalculates damages by transposing numbers, or mistakenly identifies the wrong corporate entity. Courts may correct such errors without disturbing the core decision. These provisions acknowledge that human error is inevitable, while preserving the efficiency and legitimacy of the arbitral process.
Confirming the Award
The most common post-award step is confirmation. Under Section 9 of the FAA, a court must confirm an award unless there are grounds for vacatur or modification. Confirmation transforms the arbitrator’s decision into a court judgment, enforceable through garnishment, liens, or execution. An arbitrator’s award alone has persuasive authority but not coercive force. Judicial confirmation gives the award real teeth. Courts typically treat confirmation as a ministerial act, intervening only if one of the narrow statutory defenses applies. This process ensures arbitration outcomes carry the same weight as court judgments.
Timing and Procedure
Timeframes in post-award proceedings are strict. A motion to vacate, modify, or correct must be filed within three months after the award is delivered. By contrast, a motion to confirm may be filed within one year.
Missing these deadlines can foreclose options entirely, reinforcing the need for diligence. These timelines reflect a broader policy goal: to ensure certainty and prevent arbitration from spiraling into extended litigation.
Strategic Considerations
The post-award stage demands careful strategy. For prevailing parties, promptly moving to confirm secures enforceability and guards against delay tactics. For losing parties, pursuing vacatur requires clear-eyed evaluation of the slim chances of success. Lawyers should also emphasize precision in arbitration clauses and in the drafting of awards, since ambiguities can invite unnecessary post-award disputes. An arbitrator’s award may feel like the finish line, but post-award proceedings determine whether it achieves enforceable finality. Domestic arbitration law provides only narrow avenues for vacatur, limited opportunities for modification, and a straightforward path for confirmation. For practitioners, mastering this stage is essential to safeguarding client interests and ensuring arbitration fulfills its central promise: delivering a fair, efficient, and binding resolution.
__________________
Harshitha Ram is an international disputes attorney, arbitrator, mediator, and lecturer in law. She is the President of the Global Arbitration Mediation Academy (GAMA), Chair of the ADR Section of the DBA, and the Co-Chair of the ABA Arbitration Committee.
To learn more or connect, visit: www.harshitharam.com or www.adracademy.us
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
