Sawtelle Punitive Damage Award Vacated Again – SECLaw.com

   

]]> Home | Message Board Home Search Arbitration Investors Brokers Finance Law Compliance Archives Sawtelle Award Vacated, Again
$25 Million in Punitive Damages Vacated By Court For the Second Time, Matter Referred to New Arbitration Panel

On January 22, a New York state trial court considered a new Award (Sawtelle v. Waddell & Reed, NASD ID #97-03642, 9/4/03) rendered by a NASD Panel that had been instructed via judicial remand to review its earlier award of $25 million in punitive damages, in light of the guidance offered by the New York Appellate Division (NYAD) in a February 2003 vacatur decision.

Judge Stallman of the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, explains in vacating the Panel’s decision this second time around, that the three NASD Arbitrators failed to provide any showing that they had considered the proportionality of the punitive award to the compensatory damages (around $1 million) awarded, which is what the Appellate Division was concerned about.

Instead, the new Award embellishes upon the reprehensibility of W&R’s conduct, calling it “horrible” and explaining in greater detail why. The NYAD considered that the conduct was outrageous, Judge Stallman states, and still held that, “an award of punitive damages must be proportional to the damage caused by that conduct, as measured by the compensatory damages that are awarded.” The absence of any evidence that the Panel considered proportionality restrictions in reaching its award “conflicts with the Appellate Division’s holding to the contrary.

The panel thus acted contrary to law and beyond the scope and purpose of the remand.” As a consequence, the Court refers the case back to arbitration, solely on the punitive damages issue, but remands to a different panel. (SAC Ed: Readers of the Arb Alert can track this matter through all of its incarnations since the August 2001 initial Award (SAA 01-32).

This Court only modified the Award the first time around (covered in the Lit Alert, SLA 2002-24), but that’s when the Appellate Division stepped in and used the Supreme Court’s BMW v. Gore factors to criticize the $25 million in punitives (SAA 03-06) as “grossly excessive.”

This latest vacatur (which we summarized earlier in the week in SLA 2003-05) followed the remand ruling, reported in SAA 03-36. For the record, we led the SAA 03-06 piece with this exclamation: “Incredibly, the three Arbitrators who were directed to reconsider an excessive award of punitive damages have done so and have decided that they were right after all!”

Unfortunately, the Arbitrators, who are experienced Panelists (more than 150 arbitrations among them) and who are no doubt sincere in their steadfastness, have left the parties the arduous and expensive task of presenting the punitive damages issue anew to a fresh Panel.) (SAC Ref. No. 2004-05-03)

  

]]>


Shop at Amazon.com

 


Copyright 2004 Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc. P.O. Box 112, Maplewood, NJ 07040; t: 973-761-5880 f: 973-761-1504. Materials denoted with a SAC Reference No. (e.g. SAC Ref. No. 99-01-001) are on hand at SAC and may be obtained by calling the Securities Arbitration Commentator, or by email to help@sacarbitration.com. The Securities Arbitration Commentator is the leading publication for securities arbitration news and information, and maintains the most complete database of arbitration awards availalble anywhere. For more information regarding their services, visit their website at www.sacarbitration.com

Nothing herein is intended as legal or financial advice. The law is different in different jurisdictions, and the facts of a particular matter can change the application of the law. Please consult an attorney or your financial advisor before acting upon the information contained in this article. 


Return to The Securities Law Home Page 

Visit Beam & Astarita, LLC, securities arbitration, regulation and litigation attorneys

]]> ]]>