Joseph Bellantuono v. ICAP Securities USA, LLC
557 F. App'x 168
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Bellantuono worked at ICAP for ~22 years as a senior MBS broker and was terminated September 8, 2008.
- Employment terms began with a 2003 agreement, renewed by addenda through December 31, 2008; dispute whether an oral extension beyond 2008 occurred.
- Bellantuono engaged in proprietary trading via ICAP's 210 Account; ICAP banned proprietary trading in January 2007, though Bellantuono claimed continued practice in 2007–early 2008.
- ICAP alleged Bellantuono engaged in flash trading; policies against flash trading were instituted after a 2006 SEC inquiry.
- SEC subpoenas in 2008 prompted an internal Cleary Gottlieb investigation; Bellantuono was suspended and later terminated following the investigation.
- Bellantuono filed a FINRA arbitration in February 2009; discovery proceeded through mid-2010; arbitrators awarded him $643,500 on June 22, 2011; District Court denied vacatur and granted ICAP’s petition to confirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery rulings reflect manifest disregard of the law | Panel failed to compel disclosure of SEC communications; ignored controlling law. | Discovery rulings were discretionary with substantial record support; no manifest disregard. | Panel did not manifestly disregard the law. |
| Whether the mistrial/sanctions ruling for untimely production was proper | Panel erred in not sanctioning ICAP for improper disclosure and should have granted a mistrial. | Wymbs discretion governs sanctions; disagreement with panel’s application, not a vacatur ground. | Not a manifest disregard; panel properly applied Wymbs. |
| Whether Panel's conduct constitutes misconduct by refusing to hear pertinent and material evidence | Failure to compel settlement communications with the SEC and the Cleary Gottlieb file deprived Bellantuono of a fair hearing. | Panel allowed broad pursuit of issues and consistently treated privilege/work product; not misconduct. | Not misconduct; fair hearing preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall Street Assocs., LLC v. Mattell, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2008) (grounds for vacatur are exclusive under the FAA)
- Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365 (3d Cir. 2003) (manifest disregard framework; deference to arbitral awards)
- Sutter v. Oxford Health Plans LLC, 675 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2012) (extreme deference to arbitration awards; standard of review)
- Newark Stereotypers’ Union No. 18 v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 397 F.2d 594 (3d Cir. 1968) (misconduct standard for hearing evidence)
- Century Indem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 70 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 1995) (arbitration discovery and enforcement considerations)
- News America Publ’ns, Inc. v. Newark Typographical Union, Local 103, 918 F.2d 21 (3d Cir. 1990) (discovery rulings deference; standards for vacatur)
- Duferco International Steel Trading v. T. Klaveness Shipping A/S, 333 F.3d 383 (2d Cir. 2003) (manifest disregard standard and recoverability notions)