FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 21, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12263 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 8 1 0 1 8 - CV- KLR S T G S E C U R E T R A D I N G G R O U P , I N C ., P la in tif f , A L A N D A V I D W E I N E R , I n te r e s te d P a r ty - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S O L A R I S O P P O R T U N I T Y F U N D , L P , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 21, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: A l an D avi d W ei ner app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s A pri l 16 , 20 07 order c o n f i r mi n g th e a rb i tr a t i o n a wa r d i s s u e d t o So l a r i s Op p o r tu n i ty Fu n d , LP ( “ S o l a r i s ” ) b y th e Na t i o n a l As s o c i a t i o n o f S e c u r i t i e s De a l e r s ( “ NA S D” ) . On O ct ob er25 , 20 06 , N A S D rul ed thatS T G S ec ured T ra di ng G roup (“ S T G , Inc. ”) a nd W e i ne rw e r e j oi nt l y a nd s e ve r a l l y l i a bl e f orove r$2 m i l l i on i n unpa i d f unds f r om a pr i ors e t t l e m e nta gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n S ol a r i s , S T G S e c ur e T r a di ng G r oup, L L C ( “S T G , L L C ” ) , a n d th e p r in c ip a ls o f S T G , L L C : W e in e ra n d S c o tt B u d n e r . S ol a r i s s ubs e que nt l y f

i l e d tw o s e pa r a t e m ot i ons . O n N ove m be r10, 2006, S ol a r i s m ove d t o r e ope n, r e c ons i de r , orva c a t e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s N ove m be r1, 2 0 0 6 o r d e rto a llo w N A S D to c la r if y th e s c o p e o f

th e a rb itr a tio n a w a r d . S peci fi ca l l y, S ol ar i s m ov ed the N A S D panel t o m od i fy the aw ar d t o correc tse vera l f a c tu a l d is c r e p a n c ie s , in c lu d in g a n in c o r r e c t d e s ig n a tio n o f a c o u n s e lo r ’s n a m e . So l a r i s a l s o s o u g h tt o mo d i f y th e a rb i tr a t i o n a wa r d t o r e f l e c tth a tb o th ST G, LL C a n d S T G , I n c . a r e lia b le f o rth e u n p a id f

u n d s . O n D e c e m be r22, 2006, S ol a r i s a l s o f i l e d a nothe rm ot i on t o c onf i r m the a rbi tr a t i on a w a r d a nd di r e c te ntr y of j udgm e nta ga i ns tW e i ne r . O n M a r c h 12, 2007, ne a r l y f

ourm onths l a t e r , W e i ne rr e s ponde d t o S ol a r i s ’ s appl i c a t i on a nd m ove d t o s t a y pr oc e e di ngs pe ndi ng N A S D ’ s f i na l a m e ndm e nt s t o the a w a r d, orUnder 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3) , the district court may vacate an a

rbitration awa

rd “wherethe 1 arb itrator s w e reguilty

of mis c on du c t in

re fu singto p os tpo nethehe aring , u po n s uf fi c ient c a us e shown.” NA SD R ule10 31 8 p ro vide s: 2 I f any of the pa rties, af ter duenotice, fails to appear at a hea ringor at a

ny continuation of the hea ringsession, the arbitrators may , in their discre tion, procee d with the arbitra tion of the controversy . In such ca ses, all awa rds shall be rendere d as if each par ty had entered an appe ara

nce in the matter submitted. Weiner, B udner, a

nd STG, Inc. had g iven written c onsent to be represented in the 3 Solaris arbitration by

David J. Feing old, Esq., of Fe ingold a nd Kam, LL C. On October 6, 2006, 3 a lte r n a tiv e ly , to v a c a te th e O c to b e r2 5 th a rb itr a tio n a w a r d . In a s i ng l e order ent er ed on A pri l 13 , 20 07 , the di stri ctcourtgrant ed S ol ar i s’ s m ot i on t o v ac at e the N ov em ber 1, 20 06 order a nd st ay ed further p r o c e e d in g s u n til th e N A S D p a n e l r e s o lv e d th e m o tio n s p e n d in g b e f o r e it, c la r if y in g th e s c o p e o f

its d e c is io n s a s to w h ic h e n tity o re n titie s th e a w a r d ap p lie s . T h e co u rtal so g ran t ed S o l ari s’ s m o t i o n t o co n fi rm th e arb i trat i o n aw ard ag ai n st W ei ner. D ec l i ni ng t o add re ss w hether W ei ner’ s m ot i on w as un t i m el y, the di stri ct c our tf ound tha tW e i ne rf

a i l e d t o s how tha tthe a rbi tr a t or s w e r e gui l ty of m i sc on du cti n ref

usi ng t o p ostpo ne the arbi tra t i on hear i ng , such thatthe aw ar d shou l d b e vac at ed per 9 U . S . C . § 1 0(a) (3). B ec ause the S i xt h A m endm entdo es 1 no tgu ar ant ee an absol ut e r i gh tt o cou nsel i n ci vi l proceedi ng s, the di stri ctcourt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e p a n e l d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n , u n d e rN A S D R u le 1 0 3 1 8 , to 2 pr oc e e d w i th the a rbi tr a t i on w he n W e i ne r , a f t e rdue not i c e , f

a i l e d t o appe a ra tthe h ea rin g an d claim ed to lack co u n se l. C o n se q u en tl y, th e c o u rt d en ied W ein er ’s 3before the f inal NASD hea

ring , Fe ingold wa s forc ed to withdrawas counse l for all the respondents beca

use Weiner f

iled a sepa

ratelawsuit ag ainst Budner, ser ving him the da

y before. The NA SD panel held a

n emerg ency

hearing on theparties’ reque sts to postpone the a rbitration proce eding s. Budner appe are d, with counsel, and requeste d postponement as to his liability . Weiner failed to appea

r, and thepanel denied Weiner’s request. Thepanel then c onducted a n evidentiar y hearing on Solaris’s claims, ultimately entering a

n awa rd ag ainst Weiner and STG, Inc. 4 r e q u e s t, a n d it e n te r e d a f in a l ju d g m e n t a g a in s t h im o n A p r il 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 .

“ O n an app ea l of a di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o con fi rm or vacat e a n a rbi tr a t i on a w a r d, w e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e s ol ut i on of que s t i ons of

l a w de no vo and i t s f

i nd i ng s of f

ac tfor c l ea r e rr or. ” R i nt i n, C or p. , S. A . v . D om ar, L td. , 476 F . 3d 1254, 1258 ( 11th C i r . 2007) . U pon c a r e f ul r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd part i es ’ bri ef

s, w e f i nd no re vers i bl e e rr or. T he di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y c on cl ud ed tha tW e i ne rf

a i l e d t o s how tha tthe a rbi tr a t or s w e r e gui l ty of m i s c onduc t . T he c o u r t a ls o c o r r e c tly f

o u n d th a t th e N A S D p a n e l d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in p r o c e e d in g w ith th e a rb itr a tio n . F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , w e a f f ir m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s A p r il 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 o r d e r , a s it re l at es t o A pp el l antW ei ner. A F F I R M E D .