![\"[](\"..\/..\/..\/..\/..\/..\/icons\/layout.gif\")
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\nI’m upset! <\/p>\n
I can barely stay upright enough to blog this post.<\/p>\n
I’m drowning my sorrows in green tea and wailing on my cam<\/a>, gnashing my teeth and even contemplating changing my shirt.<\/p>\n If we can’t trust Gershon Bess and Avrohom Union, who can we trust? Is nothing sacred? These are giants in Torah. Surely they could not be engaged in blatantly unethical behavior? <\/p>\n This is the Rabbinical Council of California (RCC)<\/a> we’re talking about. This is the most powerful Orthodox organization west of the Mississippi. <\/p>\n Oh, this is so tawdry and so wrong, I can barely bring myself to write about it. <\/p>\n Why me Lord? Take this cup from me, it’s too bitter, but not my will, but Thine be done.<\/p>\n Please remember I was tossed from the RCC conversion program in 2001 and nothing I should say should be believed<\/a>.<\/p>\n Stop reading this now!<\/p>\n I have no credibility.<\/p>\n I am a fraud.<\/p>\n I am a man of unclean lips.<\/p>\n I should not be defaming these holy rabbis.<\/p>\n PLEASE STOP READING NOW! THIS IS LASHON HARA OF THE MOST BRUTAL KIND!<\/p>\n Marc Haberman’s lead attorney Aviv L. Tuchman replies March 31, 2008 to my inquiry on the case: "Please do not email or telephone our firm. The case is a matter of public record. We do not have any further information other than what is in the public record."<\/p>\n In 2002, Marc Haberman’s attorneys made a motion to vacate an arbitration award by the RCC (while Mitch Roberts futilely attempted to confirm an RCC arbitration award<\/a>):<\/p>\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Zedek Tir Doff writes:<\/p>\n Bess and Union committed Chillul Ha Shem!. This is shameful. What is happening to this town? It is run by a Mafia. Time to retire the RCC and those pulpit Rabbis. <\/p>\n This is not the first time Union is disrespecting the law. Remember his decision permitting Chagai Batzri to marry a second wife without a Get? He and Ben Zaken came out with that outrages P’sak because Luna was worried about the neutrality of the Beit Din… as the Batzri’s are Dayanim (Rabbinical Judges) in Jerusalem. She preferred to go to a Civil Court for the financial arrangement. Union was offended by Luna’s refusal to let him handle the financial aspects of the divorce and made her an Agunah. That is how Batzri was Halachicaly married to two women at same time. The outrage all over the world and the media’s inquiries, scared them. So, they backed off and granted Luna the Get. She got a financial settlement in Santa Monica Court. <\/p>\n Another lovely story proving who are Union companders: A dissatisfied customer sent him a warning: A cut off head of an animal at his door. Think he got the message?<\/p>\n As I stated before. Our town is ruined by a Rabbinical Mafia!!! Time to do something about it!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I’m been researching a court case (Case Number: BC255351 C CUBED SOLUTIONS INC VS MARC HABERMAN) that shows holy rabbis Avrohom Union and Gershon Bess engaging in fraud. In 2002, the Los Angeles Superior Court threw out their arbitration of … Continue reading
\n1. INTRODUCTION
\nThe Arbitration award must be vacated, because the Arbitrators committed
\ngross misconduct and acted outside of their authority for the financial
\nbenefit of Mark Bess, the son of Arbitrator Rabbi Gershon Bess.
\nMark Bess, the President of Sylmark and then largest client of the
\nC-cubed Respondents, is the son of Arbitrator Rabbi Gershon Bess. This was
\ndiscovered when Arbitrator Rabbi Union made an ex-parte telephone call
\ndirectly to respondent Marc Haberman on November 4, 2001. At the time of
\nthis call Mr. Haberman was represented by counsel.
\nSylmark owed outstanding invoices to the C-cubed defendants for the
\nmonths of August 15th , September, October and November of 2001. The total
\namount owed by Sylmark to C-cubed was $30,000.00 for services rendered. On
\nOctober 22, 2001 C-cubed sent an email to Peter Babaian of Sylmark
\nrequesting that payment be made on the outstanding invoices. This
\nprecipitated the November 4, 2001 telephone call of Rabbi Union where he
\nthreatened Mr. Haberman that the monies owed by Sylmark will be taken by the
\nBeis Din and that C-cubed better continue service to Sylmark or else.
\nWithout authority and in direct violation of the relief specifically
\ndenied by Honorable Dzintra Janavs Judge presiding on August 2, 2001, the
\nArbitrators created a fiction and pre-text that the monies owed by Sylmark
\nwould go to the Beis Din to be used for payment of the award which had yet
\nto be issued. Although the Arbitrators had specific knowledge of other
\ncompanies that had outstanding balances owed to Respondents, they only
\ncontacted Sylmark.
\nNo accounting has ever been made by the Beis Din regarding whether the
\nmonies had ever been paid by Sylmark, how they were paid or when they were
\npaid. The monies owed by Sylmark were to pay labor and other related costs
\nfor services rendered, and without these funds C-cubed was forced to cut
\nservice to Sylmark in early November 2001.
\nThe award came out on December 14, 2001 and included six new plaintiffs
\nthat were not part of the Arbitration Agreement or the Arbitration itself.
\nThe only reasoning provided in the Determination section of the award is how
\nMr. Haberman and the C-cubed respondents violated the Beis Din’s interim
\norders which they knew were without authority. In addition, the award
\nfailed to make mention of the Sylmark monies allegedly held by the Beis Din.
\nThe Beis Din only acknowledged these monies in a letter dated February 3,
\n2002.
\nThe Arbitrators’ Award must be vacated pursuant to California Code of
\nCivil Procedure section 1286.2 on the grounds that:
\n1. the award was procured by corruption and fraud of the arbitrators
\nand that their misconduct substantially prejudiced the rights of
\nrespondents;
\n2. the arbitrator Rabbi Gershon Bess failed to disclose a familial
\nrelationship with a client of one of the Respondents and inappropriately
\nused his authority for the financial benefit of his son to the detriment of
\nRespondents;
\n3. the arbitrators exceeded their authority in attempting to benefit
\nthe son of one of the arbitrators;
\n4. the arbitrators exceeded their authority by including six new
\nplaintiffs\/creditors in the award who were not part of the Arbitration
\nAgreement and improperly included a lien on all income of Respondents.
\nIn the alternative, this Court is requested to correct the Arbitration
\nAward pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.6. The sixadditional plaintiffs\/creditors and the language regarding the lien should
\nbe removed from the Award.
\n2. TIME LINE OF EVENTS
\nThe following is a time line of events:
\na. July 24, 2001 Arbitration Agreement signed by Rocky Stefansky on the
\none hand and Marc Haberman for himself and the C-cubed respondents on the
\nother. [Exhibit 1];
\nb. July 24, 2001 Arbitration hearing conducted. Mr. Haberman was
\nwithout representation despite assurances of Rabbi Union. [Dec. Marc
\nHaberman ¶¶22-29];
\nc. August 2, 2001 Plaintiff\/Petitioner files complaint short captioned
\nC-cubed Solutions, Inc. a Delaware Corp. et. al. v. Marc Haberman LASC Case
\nNo. BC255351. Complaint was not served until January 27, 2002. [Dec. Marc
\nHaberman ¶¶40];
\nd. August 2, 2001 Ex-parte Application of Plaintiff\/Petitioner is
\ndenied by Judge Dzintra Janavs. No notice of the ex-parte or its results
\nwere provided to Respondents. [Dec. Marc Haberman ¶¶43];
\ne. Late August 2001 Hearing date set by Arbitrators despite request for
\nreasonable continuance of Mr. Haberman to reschedule convenient date for his
\ncounsel. The entire hearing concerned alleged violations of the
\nnon-existent provisional order. This was the first time Mr. Haberman
\nreceived the Arbitrators July 25, 2001 letter.[Dec. Marc Haberman ¶¶30-31 &
\n38;
\nf. September 10th and 11th , 2001 further arbitration hearing
\nconducted; [Dec. Marc Haberman ¶¶35];
\ng. October 22, 2001 C-cubed respondents email to Sylmark request for
\npayment of outstanding invoices. [Dec. Steve Durham ¶¶9 & 10, Exhibit 13];
\nh. November 4, 2001 at about 12:23 p.m. Marc Haberman received a
\ntelephone call from Arbitrator Rabbi Union. Rabbi Union told Mr. Haberman
\nthat the Beis Din is taking the Sylmark funds owed C-cubed and threatened
\nthat if service is interrupted to Sylmark it will effect the outcome of the
\naward. [Dec. Marc Haberman ¶¶51-62, Exhibit 7];
\ni. November 4, 2001 at about 12:39 p.m. Mr. Haberman telephoned his
\nthen counsel Rabbi Fried. [Dec. Marc Haberman ¶¶63.];
\nj. November 4, 2001 at about 12:41 p.m. Mr. Haberman called Mr. Asher
\nLow to report the conversation and request funding to continue support of
\nSylmark. [Dec. M. Haberman ¶¶54, Exhibit 7 and Dec. Asher Low];<\/p>\n
\nconversation. [Dec. M. Haberman ¶¶65. Dec. Aron Gold];
\nl. November 4, 2001 at 2:28 p.m. Mr. Haberman called Mr. Steve Durham
\nto report the threatening call and to see if service to Sylmark could
\ncontinue. [Dec. M. Haberman ¶¶67-70, Exhibit 7];
\nm. November 4, 2001 at 2:52 p.m. Mr. Durham telephoned Arbitrator Rabbi
\nUnion and in the call Arbitrator Rabbi Union affirmed his statements to Mr.
\nHaberman. ¶¶20-24, Exhibit 15];
\nn. November 5, 2001 Mr. Durham forwarded a letter to Sylmark requesting
\nthat the money owed be paid to C-cubed and not the Beis Din. [Dec. Steve
\nDurham ¶¶26 Exhibit 8];
\no. November, 2001 No other clients of C-cubed were contacted by the
\nArbitrators;
\np. November 6-9th, 2001 Service was cut to Sylmark. [Dec. Marc Haberman
\n¶¶75, Dec. 28, Exhibit 14]
\nq. December 14, 2001 Arbitration Award includes six newplaintiffs\/creditors, improperly orders a lien "on all income" and fails to
\nset any grounds for the basis of the decision talking primarily about
\nalleged violations of non-existent orders.
\n3. ANALYSIS
\na. Award Must Be Vacated Because Of Arbitrator Misconduct and
\nOverreaching of Their Authority
\nCalifornia Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 provides:
\n(a) Subject to Section 1286.4, the court shall vacate the award if the
\ncourt determines any of the following:<\/div>\n
\nmisconduct of a neutral arbitrator.<\/div>\n
\ncorrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy
\nsubmitted.<\/div>\n
\nrefusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause
\nbeing shown therefor or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence
\nmaterial to the controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary
\nto the provisions of this title.<\/div>\n
\nwithin the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification of
\nwhich the arbitrator was then aware; or (B) was subject to disqualification
\nupon grounds specified * * * but failed upon receipt of timely demand to
\ndisqualify himself or herself as required by that provision. . .<\/div>\n
\n1285 are subject to provisions of section 128.7.<\/div>\n
\nruled that "an award must be vacated if the court determines, inter alia,
\nthat the rights of a party were substantially prejudiced by the misconduct
\nor bias of a neutral arbitrator." (Code Civ. Proc. §§1286.2, subds. (b) &
\n(c)."
\nThe Betz court went further to rule that:
\nthe established test for making this determination when a party asserts
\nprejudice because of an arbitrator’s conflict of interest is whether the
\nrecord reveals facts which might create an impression of possible bias. The
\ntest is an objective one – whether such an impression is created in the eyes
\nof the hypothetical reasonable person. As the cases demonstrate, the test
\nis also fact specific. There is no bright line of demarcation for the
\nexistence of an impression of possible bias, and each case must be
\nconsidered in light of its particular circumstances.<\/div>\n
\nparty, its counsel or a witness. Such a relationship suggests a pecuniary
\ninterest on the part of the arbitrator or that the arbitrator will place
\nunusual trust or confidence in the party with whom the relationship
\nexisted, thus giving the arbitrator reason to favor the party for reasons
\nwholly unrelated to the merits of the arbitration.
\nId at 1508-1509(emph. added & citations omitted).
\nIn Ceriale v. Amco Ins. Co. (2nd Dist. 1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 500, 504
\nruled:
\nthe trial court may vacate an arbitration award pursuant to Code of
\nCivil Procedure section 1286.2. In pertinent part, section 1286.2 states
\nthat ‘. . .the court shall vacate the award if the court determines . .
\n.¶¶(c) [t]he rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct
\nof a neutral arbitrator.
\nCalifornia Rules of Court, rule 1606(a) provides that "[i]t shall be the
\nduty of the arbitrator to determine whether any cause exists for
\ndisqualification upon any of the grounds set forth in section 170.1 of the
\nCode of Civil Procedure . . ." In pertinent part, Code of Civil Procedure
\nsection 170.1, subdivision (a)(6) provides for disqualification of a judge
\nwhen "a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain doubt that the
\njudge would be able to be impartial."
\nId. at 504.
\nIn Ceriale the court vacated an arbitration award on the appearance of
\npossible bias merely because the arbitrator in Ceriale was an attorney for a
\nparty in another non-binding arbitration where plaintiff’s counsel in the
\nCeriale case was the arbitrator. Id. at 506. The Ceriale court reasoned
\nthat the "decision is not a reflection on the integrity of the arbitrators
\ninvolved here. We assume they maintain the highest ethical standards.
\nNonetheless, we must reverse the judgment because a reasonable person might
\nhave an impression of possible bias under the instant facts." Id at
\n506-507.
\nIn the instant case, it is undisputed that:
\n1. Arbitrator Rabbi Gershon Bess is the son of Mark Bess the President
\nof Sylmark and then largest client of respondents C-cubed [Exhibit 4, Dec.
\nMarc Haberman ¶¶16 & 17];
\n2. this relationship was not disclosed by the Arbitrators. [Dec. Marc
\nHaberman ¶¶16-21];
\n3. Sylmark owed C-cubed approximately $30,000 in October\/November of
\n2001 and that C- cubed requested payment on October 22, 2001[Exhibit 13,
\nDec. Steve Durham ¶¶5-10];
\n4. Without authority the Arbitrators ordered Sylmark funds to be
\ndeposited with the Beis Din [Exhibit 6, Transcript of August 2, 2001
\nhearing, Exhibit 10, Feb. 3, 2002 letter of Arbitrators];
\n5. The Arbitrators did not require other C-cubed clients with
\noutstanding balances to deposit funds with them. [Dec. of Marc Haberman
\n¶¶76-77; Dec. Steve Durham ¶¶30-31; Dec. Asher Low ¶¶11;
\n6. No accounting had ever been provided regarding the Sylmark funds as
\nwould be required in any Court ordered receivership. It is unknown if the
\nmonies had been paid, how they been paid, when they were paid or to whom
\nthey were paid. [Dec. Marc Haberman ¶¶87, Dec. Steve Durham ¶¶29]
\n7. The Arbitration Award includes six plaintiffs\/creditors that were
\nnever part of the arbitration agreement.[Exhibit 1 Arbitration Agreement &
\nExhibit 3, December 14, 2001 award]; and
\n8. The Arbitration Award provides no basis for findings of breach offiduciary duty, but merely describes alleged violations of provisional
\nremedies the Arbitrators had no authority to make. [Exhibit 3 and Exhibit
\n6].
\nBased upon these facts alone which cannot be disputed, a reasonable
\nperson would have to conclude an impression of possible bias and therefore
\nthe Award must be vacated and reheard with new arbitrators.
\nb. Arbitrator Rabbi Union’s Threatening Telephone Call To Respondent Is
\nMisconduct and Evidences Bias and Partiality of the Arbitrators
\nThe telephone call from the Arbitrator was an inappropriate ex-parte
\ncommunication which evidenced the bias and partiality of the Arbitrators
\nagainst Respondents. The telephone call came after C-cubed’s October 22,
\n2001 email requesting payment by Sylmark. Dec. Steve Durham ¶¶9 & 10 Exhibit
\n14. The phone records and the testimony of Marc Haberman, Steve Durham,
\nAsher Low and Aron Gold evidence the threat made by the arbitrators.
\nMr. Haberman’s telephone records evidence an incoming call at 12:23 p.m.
\non November 4, 2001. The statement does not indicate incoming calls. Dec.
\nMarc Haberman ¶¶52, Exhibit 7. Mr. Durham’s telephone records indicate a
\ntelephone call to Rabbi Union at 2:52 p.m. on November 4, 2001 to the number
\n323-397-1018. Dec. Steve Durham ¶¶20 and Exhibit 15.
\nEx-parte communications are inappropriate in an arbitration and under
\ncertain circumstances require vacation of an arbitration award. [A.M.
\nClassic Construction, Inc. v. Tri-Build Development Co. 70 Cal.App.4th 1470,
\n1478.]
\nIt is clear that the threats made by Rabbi Union implicated him in
\narbitrator misconduct for the benefit of one of the Rabbi’s sons and
\nevidences the biased state of mind of the arbitrators. The statements are
\nsupported by undisputed facts. Accordingly, the Arbitration Award must be
\nvacated for arbitrator misconduct.
\nc. The Arbitrators Had No Authority To Grant Provisional Remedies
\nArbitrators ordinarily have no power to grant preliminary or provisional
\nrelief. See [Badgley v. Van. Upp (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 218, 221( ruling
\nreceivership and preliminary injunction "ordinarily unavailable in
\narbitration."); Outdoor Services, Inc. Pabagold, Inc. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d
\n676, 685 (ruling "Attachment is relief unavailable through arbitration . .
\n."); and Marsch v. Williams(1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 238, 246 (ruling Section
\n1281.8 does not authorize an arbitrator to appoint a receiver."]
\nThe arbitrators own alleged interim order, in the instant action,
\nacknowledged that the Superior Court would have to order relief.
\nSpecifically the Arbitrators’ July 25, 2001 letter states:
\nThe Beis Din authorizes the enforcement of these orders through the
\nSuperior Court of Los Angeles, and explicitly authorizes filing for
\ntemporary protective orders and appropriate restraining orders to uphold the
\nterms contained herein, pending final determinations of the arbitrators.
\nExhibit 2.
\nOn August 2, 2001 plaintiff Stefansky through counsel appeared before
\nHonorable Dzintra Janavs, in order to simply ‘rubber stamp’ the alleged
\ninterim order of the Arbitrators. Judge Janavs denied the relief requested
\non the grounds that: 1. if the request was a confirmation hearing than
\nproper notice was "absolutely necessary" [Exhibit 6 p. 1 lns 22-28- p. 2
\nlns. 1-4]; 2. if the request was to enjoin Mr. Haberman from competing then
\nit was against the law [Exhibit 6 p. 2 lns. 19-27]; 3. if the request was in
\nthe nature of a Writ of Attachment then plaintiff was in the wrong Court and
\nfilled the wrong paper [Exhibit 6 p. 3 lns 1-4]; and 4. no irreparable harm
\nwas shown for any preliminary injunction. [Exhibit 6 p. 3 lns 5-14].Accordingly, the relief was denied. [Exhibit 6 p. ln. 19]
\nCalifornia Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.8(b) permits a party to
\nan arbitration to seek provisional relief from the court, but a proper
\nshowing must be made. Woolley v. Embassy Suites, Inc. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d
\n1520, 1527.
\nMarc Haberman was never informed of the ex-parte application or its
\nresults. [Dec. Marc Haberman ¶¶43]. It is safely assumed, however, that the
\nArbitrators knew full well that the relief sought from Judge Janavs was
\ndenied and that there was no authority for them to require turnover of
\nSylmark’s funds, Marc Haberman’s personal assets or the other restrictions
\nthey intended to impose.
\nThe whole matter of the Sylmark funds enuring to the financial benefit
\nof one of the Arbitrator’s sons goes directly to the Arbitrators’ lack of
\nauthority to require the turnover. The bias and partiality of the
\nArbitrators is strewn throughout the award. The Arbitrators accuse
\nrespondents of "a willful and flagrant violation of the law and the orders
\nof this Beis Din." [Exhibit p.2 last sentence]. The facts are however that
\nthere was no provisional order requiring respondents to do anything.
\nAccordingly, there was no violation of law and this was known to the
\narbitrators. On the first paragraph of the last page of the Award the
\narbitrators also accuse respondents of violating orders of law and the Beis
\nDin regarding a comptroller\/receiver.
\nThe appointment of a receiver is "unique and cannot be extended to
\narbitrators in the absence of legislative action." [Marsh v. Williams (4th
\nDist. 1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 238, 246]
\nThe arbitrators had no authority to demand turnover of the Sylmark
\nfunds or the other provisional requirements and it is evident from the award
\nthat the alleged violations of these non- existent orders formed a large
\nbasis for their determinations.
\nThe arbitrators overreaching of their authority is so intertwined with
\nthe Award and their objective taint of bias and partiality mandate that the
\nAward be vacated.
\nd. Arbitrators Had No Authority To Include Six New Plaintiffs\/Creditors
\nor Put A Lien On All Income Derived By Respondents
\nAn award on issues not submitted to the arbitrator "exceeds the
\narbitrator’s powers" [Pacific Crown Distributors v. Brotherhood of Teamsters
\n& Auto Truck Drivers, Local 70 (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1138, 1143.]
\nThe Arbitration Agreement sets forth the parties to the Arbitration.
\nThe Arbitration Agreement states:
\nWe, the undersigned, hereby agree to submit to binding arbitration the
\nfollowing controversy: A comprehensive settlement of all claims and
\ncross-claims between Rocky Stefansky v. M. Haberman and Ccube Solutions &
\nCcube India.
\nExhibit 1.
\nThe Arbitration Award however includes six other plaintiffs including
\nRabbi Meir Silver, Rabbi Reuven Silver, Euro Factors New Zealand, The
\nStefansky Family Limited Partnership, Super Reliable Management, and Rafi
\nKatz. Exhibit 3.
\nIt is clear that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by including
\nalleged claims of six other creditors. The only claims to be considered as
\nset forth by the Arbitration Agreement is that of Rocky Stefansky.
\nThere is no way to determine what part of the award, if any, goes to Mr.
\nStefansky or the other six plaintiffs. In addition, the inclusion of these
\nplaintiffs evidences the bias and partiality of these arbitrators inconformity with their threats made on November 4, 2001.
\nThe award also exceeds the powers of these arbitrators by including at
\nparagraph 15 an award of:
\n"a lien on all income derived from the customers and accounts
\nreceivable of the abovementioned businesses and their successors, assignees,
\nand affiliates.
\nExhibit 3 p. 3 ¶¶15.
\nThe arbitrators have no authority to grant such a lien. They have
\nfailed to consider codified exemptions for attachment orders and the
\nenforcement of judgments is solely the province of the Courts. [See Hall,
\nGoodhue, Haisley & Barker, Inc. v. Marconi Conference Ctr. Bd (1996) 41
\nCal.App.4th 1551, 1555 vacating an amendment to judgment to add judgment
\ndebtor as alter ego; Jordan-Lyon Productions, Inc. v. Cineplex Odeon Corp.
\n(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1467-1468.]
\nSince the arbitrators exceeded their authority by including new
\nplaintiffs\/creditors and imposing a lien, the Award must be vacated,
\nbecause it cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision.
\ne. The Award Should Be Vacated and Reheard With New Arbitrators
\n"Where the average person could well entertain doubt whether the
\n[adjudicator] was impartial, appellate courts are not required to speculate
\nwhether the bias was actual or merely apparent, or wether the result would
\nhave dispassionately decided [citations], but should reverse the judgment
\nand remand the matter to a different [adjudicator] for a new [hearing] on
\nall issues. [Citations]" [Roitz v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co.
\n(2nd Dist. 1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 716.]
\nThe arbitrators misconduct and overreaching of their authority requires
\nthis Court to vacate the award pursuant to California Code of Civil
\nProcedure section 1286.2. A reasonably objective person reviewing the facts
\nwould conclude that the award was procured by corruption of the arbitrators
\nwhich substantially prejudiced the Respondents.
\n4. IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE COURT SHOULD CORRECT THE AWARD
\nCalifornia Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.8 provides that unless
\nthe court vacates the award it shall correct the award if the arbitrators
\nexceeded their powers but the award may be corrected without affecting the
\nmerits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.
\nAlthough, it is unclear how the award could be corrected with the
\ninclusion of six new plaintiffs\/creditors this Court should not confirm the
\naward with these extra Plaintiffs\/creditors contained in the Award or the
\nincluding of a lien in the order which is the sole domain of the court.
\n5. CONCLUSION
\nBased upon the forgoing, the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
\nshould be vacated.
\nThere are sufficient facts, many of which are indisputable, that evidence
\nthat a reasonable person would determine a possible if not likely bias and
\npartiality of the arbitrators. This bias and partiality is clearly seen
\nwithin the arbitration award itself where new plaintiffs are included and
\nit is unclear who is owed what. The lengthy decision in the award regarding
\nalleged violations of orders that did not exist, and the failure to mention
\nthe Sylmark funds allegedly held by the Arbitrators evidence substantial
\nprejudice to Respondents.<\/div>\n
\nof new arbitrators, or in the alternative the award should be corrected to
\nexclude new plaintiffs\/creditors and remove the order for a lien.
\nDATED: FEBRUARY 18, 2002<\/div>\n
\nLOREN N. COHEN
\nAttorneys for Respondents and Defendants
\nMARC HABERMAN, C-CUBED SOLUTIONS, Inc. a
\nDelaware Corporation, C- CUBED PRIVATE SOLUTIONS LIMITED, a business entity
\nformed in India<\/div>\n