award was issued more than three years ago and instead of the pilots being paid their award parties have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the case all over again the court says undermined the whole purpose of arbitration which is supposed to be quick and expensive and efficient resolution points and this is exactly what the supreme court in a line of hundreds of cases all across the country have warned against moreover as a part of the limited review allowed for arbitration awards courts are told that they are not allowed to attempt a full judicial review and courts are reported to give great deference to the arbitrators and addition all inference of that can be must be drawn in favor of the confirming the arbitration award so as to make vacating an award exceedingly rare the exact opposite is what happened in this case the district court get them to a complete review of the arbitration if absolutely no deference to the decisions of the arbitrators and then proceeded to make a number of inferences against the arbitrators to get to the strange outcome of vacating your ward allowing the district arbitration panel to seek an explanation of the decision the district court committed reversible error when found that the award was predicated solely on a violation of a federal district court also committed reversible error when it found the arbitration panel manifest disregarded the wall without meeting the stringent standards for manifest disregard and even if the vacationer was proper that this report abuse its discretion in remanding only interactive counterclaims and over again goes to a new arbitration panel i'd like to start by talking about the district courts ultimate ruling as that will help illustrate how far beyond the appropriate bounds of court reviewing the word the district court in this case essentially this or court's order has the effect remain back the reconsideration of appellate claims effectively therefore completely extinguishing those claims interactive purposefully didn't address this in their response because it was so clearly indefensible and in fact interactive and it acknowledged that the proper remedy if they were right on their motion was to remand everything back to center nothing in the federal arbitration actual case law would allow the court to vacate part of the award this way and send back only one side's version of it to allow that to happen would allow effectively the court to rewrite the party's arbitration agreement and supplant the court's view of the case as opposed to the arbitrators dresses st as the final example of how far this report went outside the bounds of arbitration but it certainly was not the only place nor the st place i'm asking how do you understand the court's failure to order arbitration on the planet just climbs  did say that in its order and i'm just wondering how you understand the district court's reason for not also referring the plaintiff's claims i cannot explain that your hon the court issued a lengthy remand order to justify that and in that remand order the court sets the arbitrator for at least arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of their authority so the court not support remand as occurred in this case came out on which was decided under the labor management relations act not a private arbitration agreement as we have in this case only stands for the proposition of remand being an option if the award is unclear as initial arbitration that could be arbitrators that's an abuse of discretion standard so if we cored the district court some prevail on the argument that this was an abuse of discretion to send this back to the arbitrators for an explanation it wouldn't be the st parts the nd award wouldn't matter either so each one stands independen that the suggestion that the circuit is already approved that it is wrong because what this circuit has approved is sending it back in a situation where the issue is whether or not the arbitrator decided an issue that was before them so effectively that they exceed their authority which is a very different question the manifest disregard because that's a threshold court question was this an arm of the issue and so that is appropriate to send back in this said that's ok to send that back to make sure did you decide an issue before you or did you decide an issue that was not supposed to be before you which is a very different question of explain to me why you did what you did and so i can decide whether or not that and remained order back that it didn't have a basis to vacate it the option at that point time was only to confirm the award so the word to go back to that the word came back from the arbitrator had you know fairly minimal changes that were in it and in particular what the court focused on was really on the damages issue not on the liability issue in fact the court affectively blasts the theory of liability that seems to be at issue in this case where is the court actually in the rant remand order said that if interactive allowed eligible securities to be traded on portfolio margin th the question was why would this be the appropriate damages it wasn't that isn't an appropriate way for the panel to have rule and that became sort of the issue and so they came back and they answer the question the fundamental question that the court had was why did you pick this date and then the secondary question that the court had was that why didn't you give any offset as to how the accounts perform beforehand and i  pronged approach one of the main one is it thought that the upper traitor was relying for the source of its award on and on the damage there was no damaged area of course the damage raises a different problem in the arbitrator conceded arbitrators conceded that they did not have any evidence of profits and losses in the account and so they just awarded the single dollar amount showing on a particular date and  focus is not on the forty to ten issue at all it doesn't mention that the focus is on the damages which is how the you get to this damage number and so when the modified award came out that's what the panel did as  answering the question we came up with this number because that was the day that they were that day they were completely in cash and that's why we picked this date we didn't just pick it as at random that the court seemed to be concerned about know a date it's a pick of the court couldn't find a theory of damage where you can just pick a cash some showing d in an account and conclude that is then i think that you really have to give the court it's due now the question still is a legal consequence of that but it strikes me that there's a lot to be said for what the district court did on that i can't all the profits and losses in that account  them they don't have enough in the record to reach a conclusion but  that's what i what understood the point that the that the panel made was that to the extent that this was an issue that the the what should've happened is there should have been a presentation from the other side on this and they didn't present that and therefore the of that's what the district court was trouble i don't understand your argument on the forty to twelve the court spent its whole st argument and its main argument  demonstrate that and conclude that the arbitrators manifestly disregards the law in relying on that goes on for six pages or more eight pages ten pages yes your honor i think i'm not being very clear so the issue is the remainder order then to address that liability issue there's no question that the order actually vacating the arbitration award that was the entire issue that was relayed in that sense but in terms of what to the arbitrators and said you know what you explain yourself it was unexplained whether or not you use forty two since it was explain how you came up with this day and and make the the inference that the arbitration panel ruled on this issue and this issue alone and simultaneously rejected all other causes of action the problem is there's nothing on the face of the war that says that that's what happened that's an predicate to enumerate the cause of action rather than its own standalone cause of action as we outlined in our brief those included breach of contract stop promissory estoppel negligence misrepresentation so that's what they said but it isn't that is in reference to them denying the counterpoint that they don't give an explanation as to why they came to their conclusion but and again just because the final rule is relevant doesn't mean that it means that they excluded all other causes of action it could be a factual predicate for the same reason that it could be a part of negligence that's just there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that because they mention this rule and they thought it was an important part of the evidence and important for their findings that they therefore made a cause of action in and of itself as opposed to being the factual predicate for an actual cause of action that takes an ultimate inference from the court to say you ruled on this and you ignored everything else and they didn't say that and therefore it would be inappropriate but even if the school willing to follow these inferences as against the arbitrators that's just the start of this manifest disregard the very very beginning of the analysis because it's if you get to that conclusion then you have to go through the manifest as regards standards which is there has to be a clear legal principle not subject to reasonable debate have to show that they were aware of this legal principle or have to correctly understand the legal principle the arbitrators have to find that the legal principle is a political to this case and then they have to consciously choose to ignore the law this is a purposefully almost impossible test as the law is abundantly clear that all voters decisions cannot be vacated just because they get them all wrong even if they get grossly wrong it's only manifest with regard to the other traitors openly and purpose lly thumb their nose at the law and the eastern district actually gave an example of the us that sided from an th circuit case where it said you know what would be manifest disregard the answer was if an arbitrator for example stated  the law acknowledge that he was rendering a decision contrary to the law and said that he was doing so because he thought the law unfair that would be an instance of manifest disregard that didn't happen here in fact nothing even close to that happened here there of briefing and so i'm not going to get into a lot of detail on the clear legal principle issue but it is not a clear legal principle and if it's not a clear legal principle then you can't even discuss manifest disregard because it only applies to things where there are clear legal principles that cannot be reasonably ready debated if you get past that hurdle then you have to have the proof element of it which is you have to prove that they are betrayers were aware of this principle that they understood this princip that they found that it was a political blow to this particular case again there's no evidence of that and fact it's almost the opposite that when they say that they can't ignore a federal rule that is affecti saying that their understanding is that they have to look at these rules and there's a lot of reason why they would have that understanding because finra at this brief point out a lot about this but you know federal basically tells arbitrators that they're supposed to be looking at these rules and so at the end of the day it's not a question that can really be met on the incredibly high standards of manifest disregard even if you get to that so the other issue we talked about the damages of the attorney fees portion that was another thing that bothered the district court in trying to understand you know what happened there and this was one where the district court was adamant i need to see what the actual agreement  where the underlying case and the underlying argument made on attorney fees was that both parties that submitted the issue of attorney's fees to the arbitrators and that there is abundant law that says that it is therefore submitted and the arbitrators are empowered to rule on attorneys fees and again this is one place where federal tells there are triggers that that is a basis to do that everyone agrees that both sides did that and so it was completely appropriate was not manifest disregard of the that it was reasonable to seek clarification of the basis of the award from the all the tradition panel convey i'll ask here quote despite its best efforts to discern realty come up with these down and just head to the day before their last trade and also how do you find attorneys fees based on an agreement when you look at the agreements here that's that's a premise that i think and the cases that are cited at least in your brief and by the district court all applies to cases that are litigated in court i haven't seen any cases that apply that principle in arbitration where the parties can make their own contractual arrangements about what type of claims are available so reason for the law bill is finding then you would be absolutely right but when they start to explain themselves the explanation has to make sense and here they get in but i counsel is has to make sense but it doesn't have to set out there of the case of the award which is what you seem to think it does it just has to be possible i mean i almost really can't believe that this that you're making these arguments explanation should not be understood as they actual reasoning believe me it's a couple moments of damages because even if even if you were to find that there was sufficient showing could have made actually all but eighty two dollars of his two thousand nine hundred dollars final trades and the troops could have made all of them so that's another causation problem the only measure of damages here the district court did in this case but if you read those decisions that is not what they say in caml tome what the council read to you was the statement that if it didn't draw its essence from the agreement then that might be a reason but again you have to dig a little deeper in there because what the real question was is that they decide something outside of the arbitration agreement meaning that it wasn't an article issue that is an appropriate place for the court to then jump in and take action because you don't have to question the arbitrators ability to decide on the arbitration the issue that was already told but the issue is you're not allowed to decide on that the bishop case the exact same issue in this case the arbitration agreement directs the arbitrators to resolve disputes satirize out of or relating to the agreement and the agreement unless you have some new theory on that notion that the claims are submitted to the arbitration when the claim is trying to allege  a dispute arising out of the related to the agreement seems to me you still have to focus of fall back on the agreement don't you well know your honor you don't because for two reasons one is because there's our position on a one percent that the arbitrator but the arbitration agreement would still unless they modified somehow the agreement between the parties and i don't think that before to do that  anyway that's that's that's where i'm told them on that understood your honor and this issue was actually addressed very detailed in the underlying case with the district court so this arbitration agreement applies connecticut law connecticut law has a provision that says that when you have a consumer contract and it calls for attorney's fees for one side it has to apply both to both sides doesn't allow you to insert an attorney see just for the superior party effectively when that happens and so we address that and dealt with that at the district court and if you read the district court's read and order this report acknowledges there was a basis in the contract  that under connecticut law that would have allowed this and then the question went to explain to me panel how you came up with these numbers so even on even if you look at just the agreement and you didn't consider the bilateral argument in terms of both sides submitted to the arbitration panel that agreement actually does alternately provide support for attorneys fees to the appellant because connecticut law says if you if you're going to have it in there for you it comes from both sides so there is a basis for that and let me ask you about mr hurd's argument that at the end of the nd arbitration award the arbitration may was denied that language what's your response to his argument he is completely mis reading that this is to be frank with you panel this is a form that is filled out by to clarify what claims for relief meant it even says in q including punitive damages and so that is on seven hundred and six of the joint appendix but if you actually want to figure out what it doesn't include you can actually look at two more various causes of action that we pled and so it doesn't incorporate the claims for relief does not incorporate the cause of action the way that interactive is trying to suggest that it does on its face it's clear from the war  difficult times and we very much would prefer to be an open court and to hear counsel as you know it's our custom to come down from the bench after each case and great counsel shaking their hands about of course is not possible but we still want to recognize that that's our greeting to you right now it's a personal greeting and thanking you for giving the argument participating and in the process with