BUHANNIC v. TRADINGSCREEN INC (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

In 2016, Philippe Buhannic and Patrick Buhannic, brothers appearing through counsel, initiated an arbitration in New York to enforce three amendments (the “Amendments”) to the Founders’ Agreement of TradingScreen, Inc., a company that they helped to create. In July 2017, the arbitration panel issued an award invalidating the Amendments (the “Award”). In October 2017, the brothers petitioned the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for an order vacating the Award. As grounds for their petition, they invoked standards set for vacatur by section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act (“the Act”), 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), and alleged that, under these standards, the Award was invalid because the arbitrators were corrupt and partial, wrongly refused to hear evidence, and exceeded the proper scope of their powers. The District Court denied the petition to vacate and confirmed the Award, concluding that the brothers’ challenges were meritless.

Philippe Buhannic, now proceeding pro se and without his brother, appeals the District Court’s decision. On appeal, he primarily renews the four arguments that he and his brother presented to the District Court, each corresponding to a subparagraph of section 10(a). He also presents new allegations, described below. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as needed to explain our decision to affirm.

We review a district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award “de novo on questions of law and for clear error on findings of fact.” Nat’l Football League Mgmt. Council v. Nat’l Football League Players Ass’n, 820 F.3d 527, 536 (2d Cir. 2016). Applying this standard, we affirm the District Court’s resolution of the four section 10(a) challenges, substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its sound opinion and order.

As mentioned, in his appellate brief Buhannic makes new arguments for invalidating the Award, asserting that the arbitration panel had improper connections with counsel for Respondents-Appellees in this matter and counsel for Respondents-Appellees in another matter. Buhannic also includes in his papers, and asks that we consider, new documentary exhibits that he did not present to the District Court.

Courts generally will not consider an argument raised for the first time on appeal unless injustice would result. See, e.g., Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). Similarly, we “will not consider new evidence [presented for the first time on appeal] absent extraordinary circumstances.” Munn v. Hotchkiss Sch., 795 F.3d 324, 330 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that these principles apply with full force here: Buhannic demonstrates no obvious injustice or extraordinary circumstance that justifies consideration of the new allegations and evidence for the first time on appeal. We therefore decline to consider these matters.

We have reviewed Buhannic’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.