Cheapest Price On Real Cialis || Guaranteed top quality products



Kamagra oral jelly gebruiksaanwijzing viagra pills for sale in australia permethrin elimite cream over the counter. Buy nolvadex clomid uk orlistat capsules 60mg zovirax 200mg filmtabletten generic cialis canadian pharmacy cialis coupon codes discount buy xenical 120mg hard capsules orlistat. Cialis discounts and coupons canadian pharmacy for generic cialis viagra pills for sale cheap generic cialis coupon clomid twins uk over the counter elimite cream. Over the counter viagra for sale orlistat 60 mg 84 capsules sandoz orlistat hexal 60 mg capsules cost of cialis in usa viagra tablets for sale uk kamagra oral jelly gumtree. Kamagra oral jelly gold coast how much does cialis cost in us clomid fertility tablets uk orlistat capsules 120 mg. Vente de cialis aux usa cialis made in usa can you buy elimite cream over the counter elimite cream over the counter viagra for sale in uk cheap. Cialis online coupon code clomid in the uk viagra super force for sale generic cialis 30 mg is elimite cream over the counter. Orlistate 120mg 84 capsulas preзo clomid tablets uk clomid bmi uk zerofat orlistat capsules cialis 20 mg coupon elimite cream for scabies over the counter kamagra oral jelly free shipping. Kamagra oral jelly germany kamagra oral jelly haltbarkeit kamagra oral jelly günstig kamagra oral jelly günstig kaufen kamagra oral jelly kako koristiti elimite over the counter walgreens. Can you buy cialis over the counter in usa zovirax 800 mg filmtabletten orlistat 120 mg 84 capsules kamagra oral jelly hoe te gebruiken viagra jelly for sale in the uk buying clomid uk. Viagra pills for sale in canada viagra pills for sale nz elimite 5 cream over the counter buying clomid in uk Strattera 40 mg mexico. Orlistat 84 capsulas menor preзo buy orlistat capsules 120mg acheter cialis aux usa is there generic cialis in canada. Cialis 10 mg coupon kamagra oral jelly hoe innemen clomid babycentre uk buy orlistat 120mg capsules can u buy elimite cream over the counter orlistat 84 capsulas preзo. Discount coupons for cialis 5mg viagra tablets for sale in australia cialis price united states where can i buy elimite cream over the counter alli gйnйrique orlistat 60 mg 84 capsules sandoz. Clomid and metformin uk clomid 50mg tablets uk how much is cialis in us clomid uk to buy kamagra oral jelly günstig bestellen orlistate 84 capsulas preзo. How much does cialis cost in the us is canadian generic cialis safe orlistat 42 capsulas preзo buy beacita capsules hard orlistat generic cialis shipped from canada. Generic cialis 2.5 mg Buy prozac in the uk nolvadex clomid uk orlistat 120 mg 42 capsulas how much does cialis cost in usa elimite over the counter cvs. Is there a generic for cialis in canada clomid monitoring uk kamagra oral jelly gel generic cialis 80mg. Viagra uk sales clomid uk cost viagra pills for sale in uk.

North VersaillesBlackfootCialis NiedensteinCialis GreenfieldPalm BeachHalesiteCialis BurgkunstadtFarmingtonCialis Gardnerville


Cialis 120 Pills 20mg $270 - $2.25 Per pill
Cialis 20 Pills 20mg $90 - $4.5 Per pill
Cialis 40 Pills 200mg $295 - $7.38 Per pill
Cialis 50 Pills 200mg $355 - $7.1 Per pill



Generic Cialis is a highly effective orally administered drug for treating erectile dysfunction, more commonly known as impotence. Recommended for use as needed, Cialis can also be used as a daily medication.

Doxycycline price usa | Comprar viagra online entrega 24 horas | Buy diflucan ireland | Purchase viagra pills


Upper SanduskyCialis MiltonMendotaHinsdaleCloster
Bad MuskauForchtenbergCialis OhrdrufWaldshut-TiengenTorgau
SamsonCambridgeGreen VillageMount AyrWinnsboro


Cialis tablete za potenciju where can i order flagyl online can u order flagyl online who has the cheapest price for cialis. Cialis tadalafil 10mg tablets flagyl order online canada noroxin 400 mg dosage order flagyl online 500 mg noroxin 400 mg noroxin 200mg. Noroxin 400mg what is it used for bystolic generic canada noroxin 400 mg uses Cialis generico en farmacias de barcelona cheap price for cialis advair hfa vs diskus cost. Noroxin 400mg uses buy cialis in perth cialis generika in frankreich kaufen generic brand of ventolin cialis generika online kaufen. Costo noroxin 400 mg is ventolin brand or generic what is noroxin 400 mg used for cialis tadalafil 5mg tablets. Cialis 2.5 mg tablet advair diskus vs flovent hfa online pharmacy usa levitra bystolic equivalent generic cialis splitting tablets noroxin 400 mg dose. Generic bystolic blood pressure medication order flagyl online 500mg noroxin uti dose bystolic generic price how can i order flagyl online order flagyl 500mg online. Bystolic generic prezzo noroxin 400 mg ventolin generic brand purchase cialis in australia generic equivalent of bystolic. Noroxin dosage Buy valtrex online uk ventolin brand or generic noroxin 400mg used advair diskus vs hfa purchase cialis australia noroxin 400 mg 14 tablet fiyatı. Noroxin 400 mg vademecum buy cialis tablets generic brand for ventolin cialis tablets generic metronidazole flagyl order online is there a generic equivalent for bystolic.

  • Cialis in Oceanside
  • Cialis in Wisconsin
  • Cialis in Port alberni
  • Cialis in Escondido


Kamagra oral jelly purchase clomid drug cost doxycycline capsules 100 mg la thuoc gi kamagra oral jelly buy online kamagra indian pharmacy buy kamagra oral jelly. Other fertility drugs apart from clomid where to buy cialis in port elizabeth fertility drugs other than clomid. Ventolin liquid medicine clomid ncaa drug test where to buy cialis in patong where to buy cialis in angeles city kamagra pharmacy kamagra 365 pharmacy. Clomid other fertility drugs clomid drug administration price for cialis 20mg doxycycline capsules 100mg for acne. Clomid over the counter drug kamagra lloyds pharmacy doxycycline capsule 100mg price where to buy cialis in cabo san lucas. Cialis otc drug doxycycline capsules 100mg apo clomid wonder drug where to buy kamagra oral jelly in perth where to buy cialis in los angeles where can i buy kamagra oral jelly in melbourne. Where to buy cialis in paris pharmacy pattaya kamagra how much kamagra oral jelly should i take kamagra canada pharmacy kamagra oral jelly in pharmacy. When will cialis be otc where to buy cialis in beijing vibrox capsules 100mg doxycycline dosage other fertility drugs like clomid. Cialis otc in thailand 365 pharmacy kamagra cialis otc mexico doxycycline capsules 100mg acne buy cialis online canadian. Clomid drug uses kamagra oral jelly buy online uk cialis otc thailand clomid mercury drug price clomid drug name clomid drugs online can you buy cialis otc in canada. Clomid and other fertility drugs clomid drug test military brand cialis canadian pharmacy low price generic cialis clomid fertility drug buy online. Kamagra pharmacy bangkok kamagra pharmacy online clomid price mercury drug over the counter drug similar to clomid. Amlodipine medsafe nz clomid fertility drugs doxycycline capsules 100mg dosage where to buy cialis clomid fertility drug cost. Canadian drugs cialis other fertility drugs other than clomid otc pills like cialis where to buy cialis in macau. Price of cialis in canada where to buy cialis in the united states where can you buy kamagra oral jelly kamagra online pharmacy uk clomid infertility drug doxycycline hyclate 100mg tablets vs capsules. Kamagra thailand pharmacy clomid drug price where to buy cialis in chiang mai doxycycline capsules 100mg used ventolin cough medicine where to buy kamagra oral jelly. How is kamagra oral jelly used cialis 20 mg where to buy kamagra 100mg oral jelly buy clomid fertility drug reviews cialis otc in canada. Cialis 10 Pills 50mg $70 - $7 Per pill where can i buy kamagra oral jelly in perth cialis for daily use canadian pharmacy. Doxycycline capsule 100mg pret cheap cialis online canadian pharmacy where can i buy kamagra oral jelly cialis otc italy doxycycline 100mg capsules used. Doxycycline as hyclate capsules 100mg kamagra oral jelly online pharmacy doxycycline hyclate 100mg capsules espanol buy cialis otc. Kamagra oral jelly 100mg norge kamagra oral jelly buy uk kamagra india pharmacy clomid fertility drug buy online uk.

  • best price generic cialis 20 mg
  • who has the cheapest price for cialis
  • price of cialis per pill
  • price for cialis pills
  • cheap price for cialis
  • cheapest price on cialis
  • cheapest uk price for cialis
  • low price generic cialis


Is requip xl generic Drugstore overnight shipping Levitra kaufen österreich Lowest price for generic cialis Generic brand for doxycycline Orlistat for purchase


Xanax for sleep dose online cialis prescription coupon for cialis prescription xanax dosage body weight xanax 0.5 mg uk. Street value of xanax 0.5 mg xanax .25 mg to sleep xanax dosage for 10lb dog ordering cialis online canada. White xanax bars 15 mg xanax dosage duration xanax pills dosage xanax dosage highest mg where to get cialis prescription street value of xanax 10 mg. lowest price for generic cialis price for 30 5mg cialis xanax dosage for general anxiety disorder acheter cialis internet canada can i order cialis from canada. 2mg xanax enough get high where to buy cialis with prescription xanax dosage .5 mg dose maximale xanax jour cost of xanax 1mg. Xanax dosage white pill cialis from canada pharmacy xanax dosage 0.5mg cheap non prescription cialis acheter cialis générique canada acheter cialis en ligne quebec. .5 klonopin vs 1mg xanax otc viagra walmart recreational dose for xanax xanax dosage for mri procedure xanax .5 mg sleep ordering cialis online from canada. Generic cialis online prescription xanax 7 mg xanax 0.5 mg dosage klonopin 2mg vs xanax 1mg xanax 3mg dosage buy cialis non prescription. Xanax dosage s 90 3 0.5 mg xanax effects dose xanax par jour acheter cialis au portugal xanax 3mg pills 1mg xanax high first time xanax xr dosage for anxiety. Xanax tablet dosages xanax dosage pill pictures cialis from canada with a prescription 4mg xanax to get high 1mg xanax effects erowid generic cialis without a doctor prescription. Generic cialis available in canada xanax 0.25mg for sleep xanax dosage for performance anxiety xanax 4mg dose difference between zanaflex tablets capsules. Acheter cialis canada claritin interactions with other drugs xanax 0.5 mg 30 tablet order 3mg xanax online xanax bars 2mg g3722. 2mg xanax and 1mg klonopin generic cialis canadian online pharmacy generic cialis sold in canada xanax for anxiety dosage. Dose xanax jour how do i order cialis from canada acheter du cialis au canada yellow xanax xr 1mg pill 2mg xanax addiction. Order xanax 2mg online 1mg xanax and 1 beer acheter cialis ligne quebec xanax pills 2mg xanax dosage sizes 2mg xanax effects erowid. Claritin drug uses xanax dosage yellow pill xanax dose quotidienne xanax quelle dose acheter cialis luxembourg xanax flight anxiety dosage generic cialis from canada. Xanax 1 mg pill identification xanax lethal dosage xanax 1mg white xanax bars 5mg xanax 0.25 mg for sleep xanax lethal dose.

  1. pharmacy online usa international shipping
  2. generic pharmacy delivery
  3. price for cialis 20mg
  4. low price generic cialis
  5. price of cialis per pill
  6. lowest price cialis 20mg
  7. who has the cheapest price for cialis
  8. online pharmacy uk next day delivery


< Where to buy fluoxetine online :: Pharmacy assistant online courses in canada >

January 09, 2009

Manifest Disregard — Colorado Bar Presentation

Hall Street Associates v. Mattel, Inc.
and the Uncertain Future of Manifest Disregard of the Law

By Marc J. Goldstein

The decision of the US Supreme Court in Hall Street Associates v Mattel, Inc. , in March 2008, was possibly the Court’s most important ruling on federal arbitration law in this nine-year-old milennium.

The Court granted certiorari to decide, and did decide, an unsettled important question: whether the scope of federal judicial review of arbitral awards may be expanded, by contractual agreement, beyond what the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides.

That question was answered in the negative. But the provocative and potentially transformational aspect of Hall Street is not its narrow holding that contractual expansion of judicial review is unlawful — that was surely to be expected — but rather is the Court’s sweeping and emphatic disavowal of more than a half-century of judicial embellishment of the review powers conferred on courts by the FAA. That embellishment, of course, is the famous, some might say notorious, doctrine of “manifest disregard of the law.”

This doctrine had evolved since the 1950s as a federal common law principle permitting judges to set aside arbitration awards without apparent regard for the limited grounds for vacating awards that are provided in the federal arbitration statute, the FAA.

And while the incidence of awards actually being set aside on this ground was exceedingly small, well-financed arbitration losers have been unable to resist the roulette game. And so, for a half-century, the federal courts have been a bustling appellate casino in which the “house” (that is, the court as guardian of federal arbitration law) nearly always wins. But in that process, arbitration has suffered, as the prospect of long and costly judicial process has robbed arbitration of much of its promise as a quicker and less expensive option for getting closure on business disputes.

Now the Supreme Court has proclaimed that the statutory grounds for setting aside awards, in Section 10 of the FAA, are “exclusive.” But that proclamation was issued without a decisive rejection of the “manifest disregard of the law” doctrine. And so, at least temporarily, the federal courts have been left to navigate between pre-Hall Street “manifest disregard” case law, and the Court’s critical but not necessarily fatal assault on that case law.

*

The manifest disregard doctrine had its roots in a now-discredited 1953 Supreme Court case, Wilko v Swan . The Court’s decision in Wilko effectively prohibited arbitration of federal securities fraud claims, until it was overruled in 1985 . Wilko held that an agreement to arbitrate such claims was a “stipulation … waiving compliance” with the 1933 Securities Act, because the securities purchaser waived the right conferred by the Act to bring suit in a state or federal court.

The majority’s rationale in Wilko was unabashedly hostile to arbitration: that arbitrators could not be trusted to apply scrupulously a statute as important as the Securities Act, and their feared failures to apply the Act, while in principle subject to reversal under the FAA as exceeding their powers, would in practice go unchecked because the FAA affords no avenue for review of arbitrators’ interpretations of the law. Thus, in a sentence that followed immediately after the Court’s statement that arbitral failure to apply the Securities Act would be reversible, under section 10 of the Arbitration Act, as exceeding the powers of the arbitrator, the Wilko Court stated: “…. [T]he interpretations of the law by arbitrators in contrast to manifest disregard are not subject, in the federal courts, to judicial review for error in interpretation.”

In the Court’s dicta in Wilko, it is virtually impossible to discern any intention to energize a new principle of judicial review of awards by arbitrators. The solution imposed by the Court in Wilko, for the perceived practical inadequacy of judicial review under the FAA, was to make claims under the Securities Act non-arbitrable, and to deny enforcement of contracts to arbitrate such claims. The only evident purpose for the use of the term “manifest disregard” in Wilko was to contrast the available statutory review when arbitrators exceed their powers by refusing to apply governing law, with the unavailability of judicial review when arbitrators make mistakes when trying to apply the law. Nevertheless, from this tiny rhetorical seed was harvested a judicial doctrine permitting review of arbitral awards that was eventually accepted by every federal judicial circuit.

**
The majority opinion in Hall Street written by Justice Souter is remarkable for the Court’s unabashed desire to place its imprimatur on arbitration issues related to, but not directly involved in, the specific question presented for review.

The opening sentences of the opinion reveal this: “The question here is whether statutory grounds for prompt vacatur and modification may be supplemented by contract. We hold that the statutory grounds are exclusive.”

Why did the Court elect not to answer the narrow question in comparably narrow terms? The Court could easily have said “We hold that such expansion of review by contract is contrary to the FAA.” After all this formulation is, in conventional jurisprudential terms, the “holding” of Hall Street.

The explanation for this, I suggest, is that the main issue on the minds of the Justices was not the question of expansion by contract — a rare occurrence. The Justices evidently were concerned, as are arbitration practitioners around the world, over what many regard as a pernicious and uniquely American judicial doctrine: manifest disregard of the law. That was the “hot-button” issue because the lower federal courts in important arbitration venues have been over-burdened with “manifest disregard” litigation. And the unfortunate reality is that “manifest disregard” is the garb in which arbitration losers cloak requests for judicial review of alleged mistakes of law (or fact) by arbitrators.

By declaring, as the “holding” of the case, that the statutory criteria for review of awards are exclusive, the Court appears by necessary implication to have declared the demise of manifest disregard as a judicially-created non-statutory ground for review – although there is language in the opinion that some readers might consider to have left even this issue still open. But it seems nearly certain that manifest disregard as a judicial creation has been interred, and the urgent question today is whether the Court intended to go further, to signal the eventual complete demise of the manifest disregard doctrine, even as a judicial gloss upon or interpretation of Section 10 of the FAA.

So, the heart of the majority opinion in Hall Street — the language arbitration lawyers read again and again — is the Court’s ponderous revisiting of Wilko. And the main vein of that discussion, of course, was the Wilko Court’s doctrine-provoking remark that “interpretations of the law by arbitrators in contrast to manifest disregard are not subject, in the federal courts, to judicial review for error in interpretation.”

Here it is useful to quote the Hall Street majority opinion at some length:

Hall Street reads this statement as recognizing “manifest disregard of the law” as a further ground for vacatur on top of those listed in § 10, and some Circuits have read it the same way. . . . Hall Street sees this supposed addition to § 10 as the camel’s nose: if judges can add grounds to vacate (or modify), so can contracting parties.
But this is too much for Wilko to bear. Quite apart from its leap from a supposed judicial expansion by interpretation to a private expansion by contract, Hall Street overlooks the fact that the statement it relies on expressly rejects just what Hall Street asks for here, general review for an arbitrator’s legal errors.
Then there is the vagueness of Wilko’s phrasing. Maybe the term “manifest disregard” was meant to name a new ground for review, but maybe it merely referred to the § 10 grounds collectively, rather than adding to them. . . . Or, as some courts have thought, “manifest disregard” may have been shorthand for § 10 (a)(3) or § 10(a)(4), the subsections authorizing vacatur when the arbitrators were “guilty of misconduct” or “exceeded their powers.” . . . We, when speaking as a Court, have merely taken the Wilko language as we found it, without embellishment, . . . and now that its meaning is implicated, we see no reason to accord it the significance that Hall Street urges.

The decision thus appears to resolve no issues with certainty, other than the one immediately at hand concerning expansion by contract. And it thus leaves, at least temporarily, considerable room for federal courts to continue to apply their pre-Hall Street manifest disregard case law, particularly by accepting the Court’s invitation to treat “manifest disregard” as a term equivalent to the statutory bases to set aside awards.

The Second Circuit for example held Stolt-Nielsen SA v. Animalfeeds International Corp. , that when an arbitrator fails to interpret the contract at all, or wilfully refuses to apply controlling law presented by the parties, she commits manifest disregard of the law as understood in the Second Circuit’s pre-Hall Street case law, and exceeds her powers under Section 10(a)(4) of the FAA. Thus, in the view of the Second Circuit, manifest disregard and Section 10(a)(4) have essentially the same scope, and manifest disregard may be applied as a judicial gloss or interpretation of Section 10(a)(4).

This approach has a veneer of logic to it, but on closer inspection it is troublesome. If the conduct of arbitrators that constitutes manifest disregard falls squarely within the statutory vacatur category of “exceed(ing)…powers,” then why was there ever a need perceived by the courts for a judicially-crafted additional non-statutory ground for vacatur? And why have the courts stated repeatedly over the last several decades that manifest disregard is a non-statutory ground for vacatur, nearly always without suggesting that arbitral conduct in manifest disregard of the law qualifies for vacatur under Section 10 of the FAA?

The problem with the reasoning of Stolt-Nielsen is that the Court effectively performs a reverse-engineering of 50 years of federal common law adjudication, reshaping the non-statutory doctrine of manifest disregard into a construction of the FAA itself, when the FAA’s stringent limitations on vacating awards were the original motivation for creating a supplemental non-statutory doctrine. This is an extraordinary approach to statutory construction, one that entails not the least effort to discern what was the actual intent of Congress when the FAA was enacted.

Only three other federal circuits have remarked upon the issue since Hall Street; none held conclusively that Hall Street mandates the demise of manifest disregard. Only one published decision by a federal district court in Colorado addressed the issue; the court declined to decide upon the impact of Hall Street on the manifest disregard doctrine, stating that “there remains some question as to whether Hall Street did indeed eliminate all judicially-created grounds for vacatur.”
What does seem appropriate, after Hall Street, is for courts to apply a careful analytic approach to determine what powers were conferred on the arbitrator by the parties’ agreement, and by any rules of arbitration or rules of law that the parties agreed would govern the arbitrators’ conduct. Thus if the parties had agreed that there would be no pre-hearing depositions, and the arbitrator ordered such depositions, there would be an exceeding of powers. If the parties had agreed that Colorado law would govern, and the arbitrator elected to apply a New York rule that was the opposite of a clearly applicable controlling rule of Colorado law, she would exceed her powers, as she had no power derived from the arbitration agreement to apply substantive rules of law other than those of Colorado.
***

Whether or not manifest disregard survives in any form, the systemic problem of federal appeals from arbitration awards will remain. Whether the governing legal standard under Section 10 is the pre-Hall Street “manifest disregard” doctrine, or some other approach to deciding what arbitral conduct exceeds arbitral powers, arbitration losers will still present their arguments to the District Courts, hoping to find an arbitration-hostile audience that will bend the law to overrule a questionable award. Only the remote possibility of sanctions for bad faith litigation is available as a deterrent, save in those cases where an arbitration clause provides for the prevailing party to recover post-award litigation fees.

Both statistics and observation suggest that the vast majority of manifest disregard appeals are meritless. In a footnote of the Stolt-Nielsen decision, the Second Circuit cited 18 manifest disregard decisions in the Second Circuit since 2003. In 15 of them, all relief was denied, and in ten of those cases the Court ruled by summary order. In the other three cases, one award was vacated and two were remanded for clarification. The inescapable conclusion is that nearly all manifest disregard litigation is a costly exercise in futility, which serves to deprive arbitration victors of the full value of their success – especially in lesser-value cases where the ratio between legal fees and money damages is quite high.

What can be done about this? The most appealing solution, I believe, is to amend the FAA to provide for recovery of attorneys’ fees by the prevailing party in judicial proceedings in which vacatur of an award is sought, unless the parties have expressly agreed that each party shall bear its own costs in any such proceedings. The victor in such litigation vindicates an important element of federal arbitration policy, and as such should be entitled to recover fees as a reward for vindicating federal law and policy. Moreover, the prospect of a fee award should serve as a deterrent to many, if not most, arbitral appeals which are essentially challenges for legal or factual error by the arbitrator that are destined to fail. Such an amendment to the Act would go far toward fulfillment of the fundamental objectives of the FAA, which, per the Supreme Court in Hall Street, “substantiat(es) a national policy favoring arbitration with just the limited review needed to maintain arbitration’s essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway.” Such an amendment would address the essential flaw in our current system — that risk-free merits appeals from arbitral awards (meaning appeals that entail no adverse consequence to the petitioner/appellant, other than losing and bearing its own costs), clothed in “manifest disregard” or “exceeding powers” attire, serve, in the words of Hall Street, to “bring arbitration theory to grief in post-arbitration process.”