Latest News
Interim Arbitral Award — Awarding Injunctive relief: Upheld by U.S. Court
VPX Sports v. PepsiCo, Inc.CASE NO. 20-CIV-62415-RAR (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2020)
Background of the Case:
Both the parties, Vpx sports v. Pepsico, agreed to the distribution in March 2020. Pepsi decided to distribution of VPX's energy products in the whole United States. After some time, on 23rd October 2020, VPX terminated the agreement with no cause. Pepsi then stated that VPX was making such demands that were not even required per the Distribution Agreement. Further, Pepsi claimed that it was already mentioned in the Distribution Agreement that if any of the parties wants to cancel the Agreement without stating any cause, then there should be a notice given to the other party of three years. Both the parties should fulfill their responsibilities during that period only.
Pepsi then filed a demand for arbitration to the American Arbitration Association ( AAA.)on 23rd November 2020 and requested appointing an emergency arbitrator so that emergency relief could be provided before the arbitration panel is formed.
Critical Analysis of the Case:
Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002):
The federal arbitration act provides that if there is an application of any party to the arbitration and the court will have to confirm an award until and unless it is vacated, corrected or modified according to the section 10 and 11 of the statute.
Frazier v. CitiFinancial Corp., LLC, 604 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2010):
Only in the following circumstances does Section 10 of the FAA allow for the vacatur of an arbitration award:
Due to the misconduct of the arbitrators, They were guilty, and they refused to postpone the hearing even when there was an excellent chance to delay it,
The arbitrators were partial and corrupt,
The award was being obtained through fraud, corruption, and undue means,
The arbitrators crossed their boundary to that point where there was no mutual final, and a definite award on that subject matter was to be made.
Although the arbitration panel's emergency rolling favored Pepsico, the winning side followed American law. It sought final approval from the district court on order, which is needed before any award can be legally enforced.
The Decision of the Court:
As a result, the code finally approves the respondent's application concerned about the interim relief award, which was passed by the arbitration panel rejecting each offer made by the VPX sports.
Providing them with the emergency arbitrators entering injunctive award in the case.
At last, the court held that the Emergency arbitrator had the authority to grant the A final order and granted abscess motion to confirm the order.
Conclusion:
For the preceding reasons, the Expedited Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award of Defendant is GRANTED, and the Emergency Arbitrator's Order is CONFIRMED.
DONE AND ORDERED on the 21st day of December 2020, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, White Code VIA Mediation and Arbitration Centre shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.
- Background of the case
- Decision of the Court
- Conclusion
