Spector v. Torenberg

852 F. Supp. 201 (1994)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Spector v. Torenberg

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
852 F. Supp. 201 (1994)

Facts

David Spector, an Israeli, was president of Specurity Industrial, Ltd. (collectively, Specurity) (plaintiffs). Spector entered a shareholders’ agreement with Dov Torenberg, an Israeli with American citizenship, Ximena Florez, Nicolas Fucci, and TRS Computers, Ltd. (defendants). A corporation called Microguard, Inc. (plaintiff) was formed by some of the shareholders to market a product made by Specurity. Microguard and Specurity entered into an exclusive distribution agreement for the product. The shareholder agreement and the distribution agreement each contained an arbitration clause and a clause specifying that the law of New York would apply. After a dispute arose, Specurity filed a demand for arbitration. Arbitration was conducted in New York, and a final award was issued that favored Microguard, Torenberg, and Florez. After the arbitral award was rendered, Specurity filed a petition in federal district court to set aside the award. Specurity argued that the award had resulted from evident partiality and misconduct on the part of one of the arbitrators, Lawrence Weiss. Specurity noted that, early in arbitration, Weiss had discussed the possibility of imposing sanctions for frivolous litigation. Specurity also alleged that Weiss had coached witnesses for the opposing side. Specurity further claimed that Weiss had shown an anti-Israeli bias because of a comment made about economic policies between the United States and Israel. Finally, Specurity alleged that Weiss had engaged in misconduct by holding an improper ex parte conversation with Torenberg in which Weiss asked a question when Specurity was not present about a computer problem he had once experienced.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Leisure, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership