Shearman & Sterling LLP | U.S. International Arbitration Digest | US International Arbitration
U.S. International Arbitration Digest
This links to the home page
US International Arbitration

A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.

FILTER BY:
AND/OR
  • Huntington Ingalls Incorporated v. Ministry of Defense of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:18-CV-00469-KBJ (D.D.C. June 13, 2019)
    06/13/2019

    Court denied petitioner’s petition to recognize and enforce an arbitration award when the Southern District of Mississippi – which compelled the arbitration in 2010 – specifically retained jurisdiction to conclude the matter after arbitration.  Court found that petitioner showed no good cause for the court to “inject itself” into a pending matter in Mississippi by turning the award into a D.C. judgment.

  • Craddock v. LeClairRyan, A Professional Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-00011-REP (E.D. Va. June 11, 2019)
    06/11/2019

    Court vacated a revised final award issued in favor of petitioner and remanded the case to the arbitration panel to properly apply Supreme Court precedent on fee enhancements.  Court found that the arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law when it enhanced petitioner’s attorneys’ fees by 25% - an amount exceeding the “lodestar” figure that would result from the methodology courts should use to calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees.

  • Tradiverse Corporation v. Luzar Trading, S.A., No. 1:18-CV-08194-RMB (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2019)
    06/11/2019

    Court denied respondent’s motion to vacate an interim award and granted petitioner’s cross-motion to confirm the interim award, finding that a court is required to enforce an arbitration award so long as there is a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.  Court found that there was a “barely colorable justification” where the arbitrator found that petitioner raised several potentially valid claims, service of process by mail was sufficient, and respondent failed to show that the arbitrator did not provide respondent with a fair hearing.

  • Arabian Motors Group, W.L.L., v. Ford Motor Company, No. 18-1748 (6th Cir. May 30, 2019)
    05/30/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of the arbitral award, finding held that the arbitrator showed no manifest disregard for the law in his interpretation of the requirement for consent to arbitration.

  • Tatneft v. Ukraine, No. 18-7057 (D.C. Cir. May 28, 2019)
    05/29/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision confirming an arbitration award, finding that the waver exception of foreign sovereignty immunity applied to Ukraine here because Ukraine and the United States have both signed the New York Convention.  Court further declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the forum non conveniens issue, which was neither inextricably intertwined with the immunity issues nor necessary to ensure meaningful review of those issues.

  • Trustees of the Metal Lathers Local 46 Pension Fund v. Regal USA Construction Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03148-JMF (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2019)
    05/28/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding there was no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the award, as the arbitrator’s decision provides more than a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.  Court further held there was no justification under section 10(a) of the FAA for vacating the award.

  • YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Incorporated, No. 17-20802 (5th Cir. May 24, 2019)
    05/24/2019

    Court affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, finding that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers and that the award was reasoned.

  • Choice Hotels International, INC. v. K B H LLC., No. 8:18-CV-02929-GJH (D. Md. May 22, 2019)
    05/22/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment regarding the confirmation of an arbitral award.  Court held that there was no reason to question validity of the arbitration agreement or arbitrators conduct where defendant was properly notified of commencement of arbitration and failed to appear or answer.

  • Hermandad Independiente de Empleados Telefonicos v. Puerto Rico Telephone Company, No. 3:18-CV-01220-BJM (D.P.R. May 21, 2019)
    05/21/2019

    Court granted the defendants motion for summary judgement against plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the arbitral award.  Court held that following a highly deferential standard there were no grounds for challenging the arbitral award.

  • Kimsaprincess Inc. v. Hillair Capital Management LLC, No. 2.19-00952-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2019)
    05/21/2019

    Court granted a motion to remand to state court and denied as moot the motions to confirm and vacate the arbitral award.  Court held remand was appropriate in this case because defendants failed to show that removal was proper pursuant to section 205 of the FAA.

  • OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:16-CV-01533-ABJ (D.D.C. May 21, 2019)
    05/21/2019

    Court confirmed an arbitral award of more than US$ 400 million rendered under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in favor of plaintiff.  Court decided to enter judgment for the plaintiff noting defendant’s opposition pertained only to the applicable post-judgment interest rate.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Genrus Corp., No. 1:17-CV-02193-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2019)
    05/20/2019

    Court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to confirm the award did not have any clear error.

  • Vantage Deepwater Company v. Petrobras America Inc., No. 4:18-CV-02246 (S.D. Tex. May 17, 2019)
    05/17/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitration award and rejected defendant’s motion to vacate.  With respect to defendant’s motion to vacate, court held that (i) defendant did not meet its burden of showing that a significant compromising connection existed between plaintiff and an arbitrator that would merit vacatur; (ii) the treatment given by one of the arbitrator to defendant’s witness and counsel does not amount to the standard of evident partiality necessary to grant vacatur; (iii) defendant did not show the tribunal denied it an adequate opportunity to present its evidence and arguments in the course of the arbitration (iv) the tribunal did not exceed its powers by failing to issue a reasoned award, and (v) the record did not support the position that defendant was denied a fair arbitration or that the arbitration was fundamentally flawed.  With respect to confirmation of the final award, the court held that (i) defendant could not use the public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention to question the merits of the final award and re-litigate its bribery claims; (ii) there was no violation of Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention because defendant’s dislike for one of the arbitrators cannot lead to the conclusion that the composition of the arbitral authority was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties.

  • Edmondson v. Lilliston Ford Inc., No. 18-2203 (3d Cir. May 15, 2019)
    05/15/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying appellant’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Court noted that appellant’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was void ab initio were previously rejected by both the district court and the court of appeals, and that a motion for relief from judgment may not be used to reargue issues that were previously resolved.  Court further found that appellant’s allegations of judicial bias were merely disagreements with the district judge’s rulings.

  • Roth v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, No. 5:15-CV-04074-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa May 14, 2019)
    05/14/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ stipulation for an order confirming arbitration decision and directing entry of judgment thereon.  Court found that the arbitrator’s decision was valid as to the Cletus Estate’s claims, but there was no indication that individual plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their claims, and so the arbitrator’s decision should be given no direct effect as to the individual plaintiffs.

  • Poet Design & Construction, Inc. v. Andritz Inc., No. 4:19-CV-04070 (D.S.D. May 14, 2019)
    05/14/2019

    Court granted the application to confirm the arbitration award.  Court found that, pursuant to the FAA and Section A.4.4.5 of the parties’ contract, claimant properly applied to the court for an entry of judgment confirming the award within one year of the arbitration award being made.  Court also found that, even though respondent had already paid all amounts due under the award, it would enter a separate judgment for the total principal amount of the award consistent with section 13 of the FAA.

  • Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Perdomo Industrial, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-01349-AJT-MSN (E.D. Va. May 14, 2019)
    05/14/2019

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant petitioner’s motion for default judgment and to confirm the arbitration award.  Magistrate judge explained that, under section 9 of the FAA, a court must grant an order to confirm the award unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected.  Magistrate judge found that there was no application under sections 10 or 11 of the FAA to confirm, modify, or correct the award, and so the award must be confirmed.

  • German International School of Fort Lauderdale, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 0:19-CV-60741-RNS (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2019)
    05/14/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Relying on the four factors listed in Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005), court found that the jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were met.  Court also concluded that all of plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable, and that dismissal of the matter was proper.

  • Streamline Consulting Group LLC v. Legacy Carbon LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00318-SOM-KSC (D. Haw. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award and granted defendants’ countermotion to confirm the arbitration award.  Court found that the arbitrator did not make an “evident miscalculation” under 9 USC § 11(a) in awarding each defendant 25 percent of the claimed amount for attorneys’ fees rather than a maximum combined 25 percent of the claimed amount.  Court also concluded that, even if the arbitrator made a miscalculation, he did not exceed his powers for the purposes of 9 USC § 10(a)(4) as this did not constitute an irrational or manifest disregard of the law.

  • Ralco, LLC v. R. J. Corman Railroad Company/Carolina Lines, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00429-D (E.D.N.C. May 2, 2019) 
    05/02/2019

    Court confirmed arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and FRCP 7(B) and dismissed the action with prejudice

  • Landau v. Rheinold, No. 17-3963 (2d Cir. May 1, 2019) 
    05/01/2019

    Court of appeals confirmed a district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award granted by a rabbinical tribunal.  Court found that to confirm an arbitration award under § 9 of the FAA, a district court should “look through” to the underlying controversy to determine whether there is subject matter jurisdiction. Court found that district court had properly determined it had subject matter jurisdiction and confirmed the award.

  • Bailey Shipping Ltd. v American Bureau of Shipping, No. 1:12-CV-05959-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2019) 
    05/01/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Respondent had initiated arbitration proceedings against petitioner alleging negligent misrepresentation concerning the condition of a vessel.  Arbitrators held that respondent failed to meet its burden in proving negligent misrepresentation and found in favor of petitioner awarding certain fees and costs.  Court found no grounds for setting aside the final award and granted the full amount of the award plus post-award, pre-judgment interest.

  • Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Minelli Construction Co. Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02700-JMF (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2019) 
    05/01/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact precluding the confirmation of the award, nor any reason under FAA § 10(a) for vacating the award. 

  • American Airlines, Inc. v. Mawhinney, No. 3:18-CV-00731-BTM-WVG (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019)
    04/29/2019

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award.  Court found that respondent had missed the three month window to challenge the award and his opposition was not timely.  Court also rejected respondent’s argument that the award should not be confirmed because the underlying decision to compel arbitration was erroneous.

  • Hale v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., No. 4:18-CV-02217-BYP (N.D. Ohio Apr. 25, 2019) 
    04/25/2019

    Court confirmed arbitration award in its entirety under the FAA.  Court rejected petitioner’s arguments in favor of vacatur, finding that the tribunal did not exceed its powers and did not manifestly disregard the law in construing the underlying contracts in favor of respondents.

  • Light-Age, Incorporated v. Ashcroft-Smith, No. 18-20098 (5th Cir. Ohio Apr. 25, 2019)
    04/25/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed confirmation of arbitral award, finding that petitioner waived its challenge to the constitution of the panel by failing to object at the time of the hearing.  Court concluded that a party to arbitration must preserve any argument it wants to raise on later review.

  • NTCH-WA, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation, No. 17-35833 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019) 
    04/25/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of petitioner’s claims against respondent.  Court concluded confirmation of the arbitral award under the FAA barred petitioner from pursuing its claims under the law of claim preclusion because petitioner was seeking the same remedy as it sought in arbitration, the evidence needed to prove its claims was the same, and petitioner is in privity with its wholly-owned subsidiary, and is suing in the same capacity as they did in the arbitration.

  • Science Applications International Corporation v. The Hellenic Republic, No. 1:18-MC-00327-AT-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2019) 
    04/24/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for an order that a “reasonable period of time” had elapsed following the entry of judgment enforcing an arbitral award against a foreign state, concluding that eleven months satisfied the standard.

  • Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa, S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 16-17623 (11th Cir. Apr. 23, 2019) 
    04/23/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s orders denying petition to vacate and confirming an ICC arbitration award, finding the award did not offend public policy.  Court of appeals confirmed that district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the petition to vacate the award because it fell under the New York Convention and upheld the dismissal of the petition since none of the New York Convention grounds for vacatur were raised.   

  • Rubis Caribbean Holdings, Inc. v. Be Tag Holdings Limited and Blue Equity International, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-24369-JLK (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2019) 
    04/23/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm AAA arbitral award and denied motion to vacate the award under § 10 of the FAA.  Court held respondents had not met their burden of demonstrating evident partiality, finding that there was no financial relationship between the arbitrator and counsel and the arbitrator’s involvement in a matter undertaken by counsel was not suggestive as a potential conflict as the arbitrator had disclosed his involvement.

  • Thomas v. V.I. Terminal Services, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00016-WAL-RM (D.V.I. Apr. 19, 2019)
    04/19/2019

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award when it was properly filed in a federal court of competent jurisdiction within one year, pursuant to the parties’ agreement and § 9 of the FAA. 

  • Stati v. Republic of Kazakhstan, No. 1:14-CV-01638 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 19, 2019)
    04/19/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to grant plaintiff’s petition to confirm an arbitral award rendered under the auspices of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce in Sweden.  Court found defendant failed to show that any exceptions to enforceability of arbitral awards under the New York Convention were appropriate in this case.

  • National Indemnity Company v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., No. 18-534-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 18, 2019) 
    04/18/2019

    Court of appeals vacated district court’s order granting motion to enforce arbitral award, concluding that a settlement agreement between petitioner and intervenor did not establish liability of non-party respondent, but rejected respondent’s argument that the settlement agreement exonerated it from any further liability under the arbitral award. 

  • Davison Design & Development, Inc. v. Frison, No. 2:17-CV-01468-JFC (W.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2019)
    04/18/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees when there was no basis under the arbitration agreement or the FAA to overcome the “American Rule” – i.e. the presumption that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees.  Court granted defendant’s request for costs, finding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provided a basis for awarding costs where the parties’ agreement and the FAA were silent.  

  • Benedict v. Amgen USA, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00113-SO (N.D. Ohio Apr. 15, 2019)
    04/15/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, finding that plaintiff failed to comply with the service requirements of § 12 of the FAA when she notified defendant via email.   Court found that § 12 requires service by marshal, and, even if it did not, service by email would not be sufficient.

  • Lerner v. Citigroup, No. 2:16-CV-01573 (D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2019)
    04/12/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, declining merits-based arguments as courts are not authorized to reconsider the merits of an arbitral award.  Court found that no conflict of interest existed between the AAA and the defendant when defendant’s counsel served as a board member of the AAA and had previously advised defendant in over a dozen cases.

  • Ballinasmalla Holdings Limited v. FCStone Merchant Services, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-12254-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2019)
    04/11/2019

    Court denied petitioners’ claim to vacate an arbitration award under the New York Convention, and granted respondents’ counter-claim to confirm the award, when the arbitrator acted within the scope of his powers and did not manifestly disregard the law.  Court found that the award was final and definite when it decided liability and damages, despite potentially being subject to subsequent litigation pending a decision by a New York appellate court.  Court found that the arbitrator’s decision not to stay the case did not manifestly disregard New York law or the AAA Rules. 

  • Neumayer v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 17-56469 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2019)
    04/10/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim based on an alleged “sham” arbitration which resulted in an award for defendants.  The court found that plaintiff failed to state a claim when she failed to challenge the arbitration award through a petition to vacate or correct the award.

  • Jolen, Inc. v. Kundan Rice Mills, Ltd., No. 1:19-CV-01296-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2019)
    04/10/2019

    Court confirmed petitioner’s unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that an arbitrator’s partial award as to liability, but not as to damages, was “final” for the purposes of confirming an award under § 10(a)(4) of the FAA.

  • Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill, No. 0:17-CV-01212-WMW-TNL (D. Minn. Apr. 8, 2019)
    04/08/2019

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, finding that the arbitrator neither committed misconduct nor exceeded her authority where defendant disagreed with the arbitrator’s legal conclusion.  The court declined defendant’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law, citing that the Eighth Circuit no longer recognizes manifest disregard for the law as a basis to vacate an arbitration award.

  • I.D. Images, LLC v. Meritan Health, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02177-JG (N.D. Ohio Apr. 1, 2019)
    04/01/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, finding that the arbitrator arguably construed a contract in making his decision.  Court declined plaintiff’s argument that the arbitrator did not arguably construe the contract when the arbitrator failed to address plaintiff’s interpretation. 

  • CRT Capital Group LLC v. SLS Capital, S.A., No. 1:18-CV-03986-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019)
    03/31/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross-petition to vacate the award. Court held that the arbitral tribunal’s decision to exclude rebuttal expert testimony did not warrant vacatur under § 10(a)(3) of the FAA.  Court also found that there was a reasonable basis for the panel to exclude rebuttal expert testimony when its decision was based on petitioner’s arguments to exclude the testimony. 

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Stati, No. 1:17-CV-02067-ABJ (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2019)
    03/30/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss where plaintiff filed a parallel RICO civil suit while an action to enforce an arbitral award was already pending.  Plaintiff claimed that defendants obtained an arbitral award from the SCC by fraud, and that subsequent actions to enforce the award were unlawful.  Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims finding that a RICO lawsuit was not an appropriate means to “challenge non-frivolous litigation, or in this case, a valid and final arbitral award.”

  • Spruce Environmental Technologies, Inc. v. Festa Radon Technologies, Co., No. 1:18-CV-11828-NMG (D. Mass. Mar. 30, 2019)
    03/30/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the award, finding no manifest disregard for the law when, inter alia, the arbitrator rendered the arbitration award one day later than the thirty days required by the JAMS rules. 

  • Business Credit & Capital II LLC v. Neuronexus, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-03374-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019)
    03/29/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award, and denied respondents’ motion to vacate the award and dismiss the action, finding that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law and that the court had jurisdiction over respondents.  Court found that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law when he considered cases cited by respondents but interpreted them differently than respondents.  Court additionally held that it had jurisdiction over respondents when the underlying arbitration agreement and forum selection clause subjected respondents to the jurisdiction of any federal court in New York. 

  • Hoolahan v. IBC Advanced Alloys Corp., No. 1:17-CV-11949-GAO (D. Mass. March 27, 2019)
    03/27/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award under the FAA.  Although the court assumed the validity of the manifest disregard doctrine, it concluded no manifest disregard occurred and denied the motion to vacate the award.

  • Adam Joseph Resources (M) SDN BHD. v. CNA Metals Limited, No. 17-20685 (5th Cir. March 26, 2019) 
    03/26/2019

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s dismissal of attorney’s claims for fees related to a foreign arbitration proceeding on grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded for the district court to grant attorney’s motion to intervene and consider his claims on the merits.  Court held that the New York Convention conferred jurisdiction on the court to consider attorney’s claim for contingency fees because his alleged interest in the award for services rendered “relates to” the arbitration award within the meaning of 9 USC § 205.  Court also found attorney met the requirements to intervene as of right.

  • G.G., A.L., and B.S. v. Valve Corporation, No. 2:16-CV-01941-JCC (W.D. Wash. March 26, 2019) 
    03/26/2019

    Court granted motion to lift stay and dismissed the case with prejudice, as the AAA tribunal had issued awards dispositive of plaintiffs’ claims and the arbitration proceedings were closed.  Pursuant to the FAA, the court denied plaintiffs’ challenges contesting the enforcement of the awards on public policy grounds and claims the arguments did not fall within the scope of the arbitral agreement.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ claims that the awards should be vacated under § 10 of the FAA.

  • Smarter Tools Inc. v. Chongqing SENCI Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-02714-AJN (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2019) 
    03/26/2019

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross-petition for confirmation of the award and remanded the issue to the arbitrator for clarification of the award.  Court found that the arbitrator exceeded its authority in failing to issue a reasoned award, where the award contained no reason for rejecting petitioner’s claims, but rejected petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in failing to apply the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.  Court concluded the proper remedy for failure to issue a reasoned award was not to vacate the award but to remand to the arbitrator.

  • Compania de Inversiones Mercantiles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A.B. de C.V., No. 1:15-CV-02120-JLK (D. Colo. March 25, 2019)
     
    03/25/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention.  Court found that the merits award was not set aside by a competent authority in Bolivia and that the damages award was binding under the New York Convention despite an ongoing annulment proceeding.  Court held a stay was unwarranted.

View All