Search
Subscribe

Enter your email address to receive new posts in your inbox:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Share

Like what you see? Share!

Twitter

DISCLAIMER: This blog is published for general information only - it is not intended to constitute legal advice and cannot be relied upon by any person as legal advice. While we welcome you to contact our authors, the submission of a comment or question does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Firm and you.

« Not Just for Rooftops: A Look at Community Solar in Maine | Main | 4.4 MW Solar Facility to Provide Power for Madison Electric Works Customers »
Tuesday
Jul192016

Arbitration Award of $1.5 Million to Xpress Natural Gas, LLC Affirmed by Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Recently, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed an arbitrator’s award of $1.5 million to Xpress Natural Gas, LLC. The court upheld the arbitrator’s decision that Cate Street Capital Inc. was responsible for payments to Xpress Natural Gas that Cate Street’s subsidiary, GNP Parent, LLC (formerly known as Great Northern Paper Company, LLC) owed Xpress Natural Gas for the delivery of compressed natural gas to the Great Northern Paper Mill in East Millinocket (and for the installation costs of certain associated facilities).

The dispute arose from GNP’s failure to prepare the mill for the installation of equipment and for delivery of gas by March 31, 2013. After agreements to extend that deadline expired and GNP failed to make required payments, the parties proceeded to private arbitration. Deferring to the arbitrator’s interpretation of the “guarantee” in a particular commercial agreement, the Court found that arbitrator’s interpretation was “rationally derived from the agreement.” The Court rejected GNP’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by interpreting the guarantee in a way that showed “manifest disregard for the contract.”

When explaining the standard that the Court applies when reviewing an arbitrator’s award, the Court noted that even when the arbitrator’s interpretation is erroneous, if the interpretation is rationally derived from the agreement, the arbitrator has not exceeded the arbitrator’s authority. However, an arbitrator may not base an award on the arbitrator’s “own individual concept of justice in the particular area involved” or directly contradict the agreement. 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend