What is the standard of review in a securities arbitration proceeding?

In Oregon, the standard of review in a securities arbitration proceeding is a review of the record to determine whether the arbitrator’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as relevant evidence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In making this determination, the court is not allowed to substitute its opinion for that of the arbitrator, nor can it reweigh the evidence presented to the arbitrator. The court must give deference to the arbitrator, as the arbitrator is the person who heard the evidence at the arbitration hearing and is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. Thus, the court is not to consider whether it would have decided the case differently than the arbitrator. For example, if the arbitrator found that Employee A was guilty of misconduct, the court would not consider whether a different conclusion, such as employee A was not guilty, should have been reached. The court’s role is simply to review the record to determine whether the evidence presented to the arbitrator was sufficient to support the arbitrator’s conclusion. The court does have the power, however, to set aside the arbitrator’s award if it finds that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of their authority or the award was issued in manifest disregard of the law, or was the result of an evident partiality of an arbitrator or corruption in the arbitrator. Therefore, the standard of review in a securities arbitration proceeding in Oregon is a review of the record to determine whether the arbitrator’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

What is the standard of review in a securities arbitration proceeding?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts