Koruga

MEMORANDUM **

Fiserv appeals the denial of its motion to vacate an adverse arbitration award. The company contends that the arbitration panel manifestly disregarded applicable law in determining that it acted as a broker-dealer and materially aided in fraudulent transactions committed by initiating broker Duke & Company, rendering the company liable under RCW § 21.20.430(3) and Cal. Corp.Code § 25504. It also complains of the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to the appellees incurred in responding to its motion to vacate the award. Finding a sufficient basis in law for the arbitration panel’s award and the district court’s award of attorney’s fees, we affirm.

ANALYSIS

We review de novo the district court’s denial of Fiserv’s motion to vacate. 1 Absent a showing to the contrary, we presume that the arbitrators relied on permissible grounds in making their decision and made an appropriate award. 2 An arbitration award will be set aside only if it constitutes a “manifest disregard of the law.” 3 This stringent standard of review requires confirmation of an arbitration award “even in the face of ‘erroneous ... misinterpretations of law.’” 4 To vacate an arbitration award…