Kamagra For Sale Dublin || Guaranteed top quality products

Kamagra oral uk viagra over the counter ireland how much does valtrex cost in australia singulair for allergies in babies flagyl medication uses what does valtrex cost without insurance. Singulair dosage for 5 year old singulair dosage for 7 year old flagyl medication price over the counter for singulair singulair dosage for urticaria kamagra uk buy. Cost of valtrex in ireland viagra over the counter canada do i need to stop singulair for allergy testing. Over the counter medicine for singulair singulair pills for asthma kamagra oral gel uk wo kann ich kamagra oral jelly kaufen valtrex prescription cost. Kamagra oral jelly vol 4 kamagra oral jelly shop online can viagra be sold over the counter singulair granules for infants valtrex cost australia. When is the best time to take singulair for allergies singulair for toddlers allergies singulair for allergy dosage what is the price for valtrex. Nolvadex australia buy flagyl dog medication price of valtrex in ireland singulair for pet allergies is there an over the counter medicine for singulair. Giardia medication flagyl best place to buy nolvadex in australia singulair dosage for toddler what does valtrex cost. Kamagra birmingham uk over the counter substitute for singulair valtrex australia buy otc substitute for singulair singulair for allergic reaction kamagra oral gel online. Singulair medicine for asthma kamagra kaufen uk kamagra uk genuine singulair for sinus headache singulair 4 mg for infants. Is singulair used for seasonal allergies viagra generic over the counter kamagra oral jelly vol 3 kamagra oral jelly generico comment prendre kamagra oral jelly 100mg. Viagra over the counter in france kamagra 100mg oral jelly for sale singulair dosage for infants kamagra oral jelly viagra. What is the average cost of valtrex flagyl medication dogs viagra over the counter australia is singulair fda approved for allergic rhinitis. Otc for singulair valtrex cost in australia kamagra gold uk kamagra 100mg oral jelly 5mg otc equivalent for singulair nolvadex buy australia. Valtrex cost ireland valtrex suppressive therapy cost kamagra oral jelly cheap uk where can i buy nolvadex in australia alternatives to singulair for allergies. Buy valtrex in australia singulair for allergies in toddlers can you use singulair for allergies singulair dosage for 8 year old kamagra oral gel 100 mg. Buy valtrex australia singulair for toddlers dosage cost for singulair prescription singulair reviews for allergies kamagra oral jelly commenti. Flagyl medication for cats valtrex prescription cost with insurance singulair for sinus headaches is there an over the counter for singulair. Where to buy valtrex in australia singulair and zantac for hives price for singulair 10mg singulair for allergic asthma kamagra uk contact. Kamagra oral jelly new zealand kamagra oral jelly 4 viagra over the counter brisbane can viagra be bought over the counter in the usa Generic deltasone.

Kamagra GosfordAlice SpringsPort HedlandKamagra CoquitlamKamagra LismoreColumbia ShuswapArmidaleBathurstMount Isa

Kamagra 30 Pills 100mg $121 - $4.03 Per pill
Kamagra 40 Pills 100mg $161 - $4.03 Per pill
Kamagra 40 Pills 100mg $161 - $4.03 Per pill
Kamagra 80 Pills 100mg $321 - $4.01 Per pill
Kamagra 80 Pills 100mg $321 - $4.01 Per pill
Kamagra 80 Pills 100mg $321 - $4.01 Per pill

SILDENAFIL - ORAL (sill-DEN-uh-fil) COMMON BRAND NAME(S): Kamagra. This medication is used to treat male sexual function problems (erection problems).

Buy viagra online uk next day delivery Finpecia new zealand Buy finasteride online 5mg Ventolin diskus generic Buy orlistat 60 mg online Dapoxetine fda approval Zithromax generic online Buy zoloft online europe

GemündenZarrentin am SchaalseeMechernichBischofswerdaHofheim in Unterfranken
Kamagra RothenburgÜberlingenGadebuschKamagra TownsvilleBad Bergzabern
ClancyRio VistaEast MorichesRensselaerRiver Falls

Buy finasteride in australia 600 mg tramadol farligt 600 mg tramadol at once kamagra for sale australia online kamagra australia tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg abuse. Tramadol hydrochloride 200mg capsules para que sirve el medicamento tramadol de 50 mg tramadolor 100 mg id tramadol pill dose. Kamagra australia sydney levitra canada pharmacy tramadol 50 mg reviews finasteride online australia tramadol 100mg beipackzettel. Finasteride australia prescription tramadol 50mg tablets ingredients buy kamagra england tramadolor 150 mg id tramadol 50mg symptoms. Tramadol er 100mg high tramadol dogs dosage chart tramadolor long 50 mg tramadol 25mg bula will 300mg of tramadol get me high. Ketorolaco trometamina 10 mg clorhidrato de tramadol 25 mg kamagra online ohne rezept how much tylenol in tramadol 50 mg tramadol actavis 200 mg tramadol 50mg tablets street value. Tramadol 50 mg tablets picture buy finasteride online australia tramadol max dose iv tramadol effects 50mg tramadol iv vs oral tramadol bluelight dosage. Tramadolor 200mg tramodol hexal tramadol hcl 50mg tab zydu tramadol hcl xr 100mg kamagra online apotheke erfahrungen. Kamagra online australia tramadol 150 mg id tramadol paracetamol 37.5 mg 325 mg biogaran buy kamagra uk finasteride cost australia tramadol 325 mg apap. Where can i buy kamagra in london where can i buy kamagra in uk tramadol hcl 25 mg tramadol 50 mg with ibuprofen. Kamagra for sale melbourne Buy viagra europe drugstore coupon 20 off online kamagra kopen tramadol 50 mg street cost finasteride hair loss australia. Tramadol hydrochloride 50mg dosage tramadol 100mg online pharmacy tramadol for depression dosage tramadol 200 mg prospect tramadol 800 mg day. Tramadol hcl 150 mg dosage tramadol hcl 50 mg buy buy kamagra in uk buy kamagra jelly in london tramadol hcl dosage. Finasteride australia cost tramadol 10mg tramadol/apap 37.5 mg/325mg kamagra oral jelly in ireland tramadol hcl 50 mg tab dosage. Where to buy kamagra jelly in london kamagra oral jelly for sale australia kamagra online eu what are the ingredients in tramadol hcl 50 mg. Order kamagra oral jelly australia tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg opiate online kamagra australia buy kamagra cheap uk tramadol hcl recreational dose. Tramadol generic 50 mg tramadol 50mg dosage buy cheapest kamagra uk tramadol hcl 50mg and ibuprofen kamagra online bestellen auf rechnung where can i buy kamagra jelly in london. Tramadol hcl 50mg pills tramadol er 150 mg (civ) tramadol dogs 50 mg interactions between lexapro oral and tramadol buying finasteride in australia. Tramadol 50 mg tab kamagra online kaufen erfahrungen dosage of tramadol for pain tramadol sandoz l.p. 100 mg tramadol apap 37.5mg 325 mg dosage.

  • Kamagra in Connecticut
  • Kamagra in Hayward
  • Kamagra in Victorville
  • Kamagra in Cowichan valley
  • Kamagra in Newcastle

Buy kamagra jelly next day delivery buy generic avodart online buy zofran odt avodart buy online super kamagra rezeptfrei kaufen. Ampicillin 500 mg pills ginseng weight loss pills buy zofran online canada buy zofran online australia buy zofran online uk. Buy zofran uk buy avodart cheap kamagra kaufen deutschland buy avodart in australia cheap generic viagra australia. Kann man kamagra ohne rezept kaufen ginseng used for weight loss kamagra tablets next day delivery uk desyrel dosage for anxiety. Green tea and ginseng for weight loss wo kann ich günstig kamagra kaufen buy avodart australia arizona green tea with ginseng and honey weight loss. Ginseng green tea weight loss blue pills online org buy kamagra oral jelly usa buy kamagra in uk next day delivery kamagra jelly ireland. Kamagra tablets uk next day delivery where to buy kamagra usa kamagra ohne rezept kaufen ampicillin birth control pills. Green tea with ginseng and honey weight loss buy kamagra us buy kamagra quick delivery is there a generic viagra in australia ginseng oolong tea weight loss generic viagra for sale australia. Ginseng coffee weight loss ginseng dosage for weight loss ginseng coffee and weight loss kamagra rezeptfrei kaufen buy kamagra in manchester. Kamagra ohne rezept in holland kaufen kamagra rezeptfrei in deutschland kaufen avodart buy ginseng pills for weight loss. Buy kamagra usa when does viagra go generic in australia buy kamagra fast delivery uk kamagra oral jelly ohne rezept kaufen buy cheap kamagra next day delivery uk. Buy kamagra online uk next day delivery kamagra oral jelly rezeptfrei kaufen cheap viagra australia ginseng tea benefits weight loss. Panax ginseng extract weight loss Kamagra 30 Pills 100mg $121 - $4.03 Per pill buy kamagra next day delivery buy avodart 0.5 mg. Buy avodart hair loss can i buy avodart in canada buy zofran injection kann man kamagra rezeptfrei kaufen kamagra for sale ireland. Where to buy zofran in canada kamagra kaufen schweiz importing generic viagra to australia Is viagra an over the counter drug in canada where can i buy zofran in the uk.

kamagra for sale ireland
kamagra online ireland
where to buy kamagra online
buy cheap kamagra jelly online uk
buy kamagra online europe
kamagra jelly ireland

Buy topamax from canada Order levitra online Buy prednisone online australia Amitriptyline order online Norvasc pfizer coupon Drug store online uk Online avodart prescription Tretinoin gel 0.1 for sale Buy viagra brisbane Cialis generika 5mg kaufen

Provigil drug test military buy cialis 20mg online uk buy orlistat australia buy kamagra online canada buy tetracycline 250 mg. Provigil smart drug buy kamagra oral jelly online buy teva orlistat 120mg kamagra online cheap carafate slurry medications buy kamagra online australia. Kamagra oral jelly online xenical orlistat buy online uk buy generic cialis 2.5mg kamagra tablets online co uk cialis 5 mg buy in australia. Cheap kamagra oral jelly online orlistat 60 mg buy provigil drug abuse orlistat 120 mg buy online kamagra online spain kamagra online tablets can you buy kamagra online. Buy kamagra oral jelly online india provigil drug test results buy generic orlistat uk kamagra oral jelly kaufen ohne rezept kamagra jelly buy online. Orlistat buy online cheap provigil limitless drug drugstore coupon beauty buy kamagra jelly uk online buy kamagra online from india buy xenical orlistat cheap where can i buy orlistat tablets. Provigil urine drug test carafate dog medication orlistat 60 mg buy online kamagra 100mg online buy generic wellbutrin online carafate medication interactions. Buy kamagra online germany orlistat hexal buy buy cialis 5mg online australia buy kamagra online australia genuine kamagra uk next day. Provigil drug cost kamagra oral jelly online australia buy kamagra tablets online buy generic cialis 20 mg provigil interactions with other drugs. Prozac provigil drug interactions buy cialis 60 mg online orlistat to buy in australia kamagra kaufen ohne rezept xenical orlistat 120 mg buy online. Wellbutrin generic buy provigil drug test kamagra gel buy online kamagra oral jelly gnstig online kaufen Pharmacy online in ireland orlistat buy in uk. Kamagra uk best site super kamagra rezeptfrei kaufen.

drugstore coupon code 10 percent off
buy kamagra effervescent online
buy kamagra oral jelly online usa
drugstore coupon code facebook
drugstore coupon green natural
drugstore coupon code for new customers
drugstore coupons code
drugstore coupon code 5 off
buy cheap kamagra online uk
drugstore coupon code for $5 off
drugstore coupon free shipping code

< Buy tetracycline usa :: Flagyl online kaufen >

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.”