Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


December 8, 1987

Ernest E. Sargent, et al., Plaintiffs,
Paine Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. et al., Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: PARKER

 (Vacating Arbitration Award and Remand)

 Plaintiffs, Ernest and Cynthia Sargent, filed this action against the brokerage house, Paine Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. ("Paine Webber"), and several of its agents alleging negligent management of plaintiffs' investment accounts. On October 31, 1984, an Order was entered dismissing without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs the right to seek appropriate judicial relief, following the completion of arbitration proceedings as provided under earlier agreements between the parties. Plaintiffs' submission to an arbitration board was required by the "Client Option Agreements," and was mandated by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-14. *fn1"

 Arbitration took place in July 1986, before a panel of three arbitrators selected in accordance with New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") Rules. On August 19, 1986, in a 2-1 decision, the panel awarded the Sargents $ 46,000, representing less than 20 percent of the approximately $ 260,000 that plaintiffs had lost during the period the defendants managed their account.

 Plaintiffs then moved this Court to vacate the arbitral award; Paine Webber filed a cross motion seeking confirmation of the award.

 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion to vacate the arbitration award and denies defendants' cross-motion. The matter is remanded to the NYSE Arbitration Panel for clarification.


 In July 1983, plaintiffs retained Paine Webber to manage their stock portfolio, consisting primarily of shares of stock and put and call options in Coleco Industries. Sometime after their initial purchases of Coleco, the share price of that stock declined. To minimize or eliminate losses, plaintiff Ernest Sargent devised a "cost averaging plan," whereby he would purchase additional shares of Coleco at the reduced market price and hold them until the price began to rise. Under this plan, plaintiffs could recover losses at a per-share price lower than that at which they made their initial purchases. This plan required that defendants be attentive to the daily fluctuations in the value of Coleco stock and to respond accordingly without delay.

 Throughout the fall of 1983 and into 1984, plaintiffs' investment managers allegedly ignored crucial changes in the price of Coleco and failed to respond according to instructions. As a result, plaintiffs lost money which they estimated at some $ 256,000. In an attempt to regain their losses, plaintiffs instituted suit in this Court.

 As permitted by the NYSE rules, the arbitration panel kept no record and entered no findings of fact or conclusions of law. *fn2" Marc White, then serving as plaintiffs' attorney in the arbitration proceedings, apparently felt the award was so grossly deficient as to "constitute[] error that must be remedied." *fn3" Even so, Mr. White evidently did not agree with plaintiffs on the proper basis for further action and consequently ceased representing their interests. Subsequent to the arbitration award the plaintiffs have not been represented by counsel and their motion to vacate the arbitration award was filed pro se.4


 A district court has the prerogative to exercise independent review of an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C. §§ 9-10 (1987). Section 10 of the Act specifically gives United States district courts the power to vacate arbitration awards. Id. § 10. Even so, courts must bear in mind that judicial review of arbitrators' decisions is very narrowly limited.

 It is well settled, however, that a court should not attempt to enforce an award that is ambiguous, indefinite or irrational. Although a court is precluded from overturning errors in factual determinations, "nevertheless, if an examination of the record before the arbitrator reveals no support whatever for his determinations, his award must be vacated." NF & M Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 524 F.2d 756, 760 (3d Cir. 1975) (emphasis added).

 Since the record before the arbitrators has not been presented and the decision by the panel is very brief and unaccompanied by any explanation of the damage calculation, *fn5" this Court cannot determine whether the award is supported by the record. It is also impossible to discern what calculation led to a final award which was only one-fifth of the amount claimed by the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.