Approaches to the Confirmation of Interim Awards

Courts have different approaches as to whether the confirmation of interim or partial awards is permitted. Where can award holders take their interim or partial awards if they're in a hurry to start enforcing it?

The Southern District of New York allows, under certain circumstances, the confirmation of partial awards. Specifically, in Daum Glob. Holdings Corp. v. Ybrant Digital Ltd., No. 13 CIV. 03135 AJN, 2014 WL 896716 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2014), the Southern District decided a partial award was nonetheless final when it "has permanently resolved a 'separate and distinct issue from the issue of how the costs of the arbitration are ultimately to be borne by the parties.'” Id. at *3. The Court explained that "as the Award is a 'decision [that] require[s] specific action and do[es] not serve as a preparation or a basis for further decisions by the arbitrators,' it 'finally and conclusively disposed of a separate and independent claim’ and therefore ‘may be confirmed although [it does] not dispose of all the claims that were submitted to arbitration.’” Id.

The Northern District of California relied on the Second Circuit approach to do the same--agreeing that "the court has jurisdiction to confirm a partial international arbitration award where the award 'finally and conclusively dispose[s] of a separate and independent claim and [is] subject to neither abatement nor set-off.'” Hyosung (Am.) Inc. v. Tranax Techs. Inc., 2010 WL 1853764, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2010). The Court specifically rejected an argument that urgency is required to confirm such partial awards. Id.

In contrast, the Eastern District of Michigan denied confirmation of a partial award when there was "no immediate need or reason to confirm [it] ... [even ]though the award fully addresse[d]" certain “claims, counterclaims and third party claims.” Lighthouse Galleries, LLC v. Thomas Kinkade Co., No. 08-13466, 2008 WL 5102245, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 1, 2008). The First Circuit also recognized that because "judicial confirmation of interim awards constitutes an exception to the ordinary rule governing arbitral finality," the presence of special factors "such as the peculiar character of the arbitration, express agreements between litigants, or unusually exigent circumstances" is needed. Univ. of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo, LLC, 49 F.4th 13, 21 (1st Cir. 2022).

Delaware state courts have also stressed that "[a]n interim partial award is not a final decision of an arbitrator and thus it is 'not an award that can be confirmed or vacated under the [Delaware Uniform Arbitration Act].'” Astrum Fund I GP, LP v. Maracci, No. CV 2020-0919-PAF, 2022 WL 252343, at *9 (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2022).