Opinion ID: 202422
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The First Remand Order

Text: Although not the subject of this appeal, the court's First Remand Order provides a useful insight into its reasoning in this case. As noted above, the First Panel explained the First Award against McCarthy in these terms: While [McCarthy] invoked New Hampshire wage law to support his case, the Panel considered it irrelevant because the Panel considered the case to be a contract dispute regarding an inventive compensation plan commonly used at the firm and commonly used in the securities industry. (Emphasis added.) Focusing on the Panel's use of the word irrelevant, the district court concluded that the panel set aside the governing law in favor of its perception of an equitable result and industry practices. The panel's decision not to consider the New Hampshire wage laws demonstrates its disregard for the governing law. The court saw the First Panel's reasoning as an instance where it is clear from the record that the arbitrator[s] recognized the applicable law -- and then ignored it. Advest, 914 F.2d at 9. Lest there be any doubt about this point, the court explained again in the Second Remand Order the problem with the First Award: In the first award, the panel stated -11- that the New Hampshire wage laws were irrelevant. As such, the panel explicitly disregarded the governing law. The court's First Remand Order, given the court's interpretation of the First Award, was a conventional application of the manifest disregard of the law standard.