Luby’s Restaurants Limited Partnership v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, 2011 WL 1740196 (S.D. Tex. May 5, 2011)
In a case before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Luby’s Restaurants Limited Partnership (“Luby’s”) sought to confirm a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) arbitration award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9. In its petition, Luby’s also sought a court ruling to interpret the arbitration award as requiring Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (“Credit Suisse”) to recompense an additional $186,000 in damages. Luby’s originally filed the petition in state court, but Credit Suisse removed to federal court. The federal district court confirmed the arbitration award in Luby’s favor and denied Luby’s petition to order Credit Suisse to pay the additional sum.
The underlying dispute in this case is based on Luby’s purchase of over $30 million in auction rate securities from Credit Suisse. Credit Suisse had falsely represented that these securities were suitable to Luby’s investment goals because they were equivalent to money market funds, highly liquid, and safe investments for short term investing.
In October 2008, when Luby’s filed arbitration proceedings, the company had redeemed all but $8.9 million worth of the securities, which could not be sold at par value. In September 2009, after proceedings had been initiated but before the arbitration hearings had begun, Luby’s redeemed one of the remaining securities for less than par value, sustaining a $186,000 loss. During May in 2010, the FINRA arbitration panel ruled that Credit Suisse was liable to Luby’s for the re-purchase of the disputed auction rate securities at par value, and that Credit Suisse was also liable to Luby’s for interest on the par purchase price of these securities from a specific date after the arbitration award through the date the award was paid in full.
The Arbitration Award
Pursuant to the terms of the arbitration award, Credit Suisse purchased all of Luby’s remaining securities at par value and paid the required interest. Neither party contested the award and both parties sought its confirmation.
However, Luby’s and Credit Suisse disputed whether the award included the $186,000 loss that Luby’s sustained when it sold securities for less than par value after filing for arbitration. Luby’s did not request the court to modify or correct the award, but to confirm the award as written and interpret the writing as including the additional loss. In raising this issue, neither Luby’s nor Credit Suisse argued that FINRA arbitration did not fully resolve their dispute, nor did they assert that the language of the arbitration award created a collateral dispute.
Interpretations of an Ambiguous Arbitration Award
Courts are required to enforce arbitration awards only as written by the arbitrator; therefore, if an arbitration award is ambiguous, it is unenforceable and must be remanded to the arbitrator with instructions to clarify the particular ambiguities. Brown v. Witco Corp., 340 F.3d 209, 216 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int’l Union Local 4–367 v. Rohm & Haas, Tex., Inc., 677 F.2d 492, 495 (5th Cir. 1982). Remand is only appropriate where: (1) an arbitration award is patently ambiguous; (2) the issues submitted to arbitration were not fully resolved; or (3) the language of the arbitration award created a collateral dispute. Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers, 677 F.2d at 495.
Although both Luby’s and Credit Suisse argued different interpretations of the FINRA arbitration award, the district court did not find that the award itself was patently ambiguous. The plain language of the award makes no mention of additional damages sustained by Luby’s during the pendency of the arbitration hearings. Credit Suisse could clearly not purchase back the securities that were sold because they were no longer in Luby’s possession.
The award clearly denied any relief other than that which was expressly granted in its plain language. Additionally, during the arbitration hearings, Luby’s presented this loss as a claim distinct from the claim to buy back the auction rate securities at par. The arbitrators did not include this relief in the arbitration award, thereby effectively denying such relief. Therefore, because the federal district court found the arbitration award to be unambiguous, it confirmed and enforced the award as written.
The court ordered that the final FINRA arbitration award in Luby’s favor be confirmed and adopted as the judgment of the court. Luby’s petition to order Credit Suisse to make additional payment of $186,000 was denied as not having been ordered in the final award of the arbitration panel.
Should you have any questions relating to FINRA or arbitration issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County, Connecticut at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.