Professional Sport Service FI OY v. Puck Agency LLC

Background

Professional Sport Service FI OY and Puck Agency LLC represent ice hockey players. In 2012, they entered into a five-year agreement concerning their joint representation of certain clients. The agreement required Puck Agency to use Professional Sport Service for referrals and recruitment of clients in Finland and gave Professional Sport Service a share of resulting commissions. It also addressed commissions payable when Puck Agency’s clients returned to play hockey in Europe or Russia.

After the agreement expired in 2017, Professional Sport Service sought unpaid past commissions and claimed future commissions. It began arbitration in Finland in April 2018. Judge Henrik Fieber was appointed as the sole arbitrator, and the arbitration hearing took place in Helsinki from October 22 through October 24, 2018. Judge Fieber issued an award against Puck Agency on November 22, 2018.

The award required Puck Agency to pay Professional Sport Service:

- $76,616.00, plus 5% interest from July 5, 2017, for commissions withheld during the 2016–17 hockey season; - $171,919.60, plus 5% interest from July 5, 2018, for commissions collected after the agreement expired during the 2017–18 season; - $46,326.99 in arbitration costs and expenses, plus delay interest under the Finnish Interest Act; - $11,710.94 for 25% of Judge Fieber’s fees and costs; and - future commissions for as long as Puck Agency represented eight listed hockey players.

Professional Sport Service calculated its total request, including interest and projected future commissions, as $973,514.58. Puck Agency challenged the $11,710.94 request for arbitrator-related fees and costs and argued that Professional Sport Service was entitled to no future commissions beyond the amount specified for the 2017–18 season.

Legal standard

The court applied the Federal Arbitration Act provisions implementing the New York Convention, an international treaty governing recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. Under that framework, a court generally must confirm an award unless one of the Convention’s limited defenses applies. The party opposing enforcement has the burden of proving such a defense, and review of a foreign arbitration award is highly deferential.

The court treated the petition to confirm the award like a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Evidence supporting the motion must be based on the declarant’s personal knowledge.

Arbitrator’s fees and costs

The court held that Professional Sport Service was entitled to $11,710.94. The award required Puck Agency to pay three-quarters of total arbitration costs of €41,067.00, while both parties had paid €22,500.00 in advance. Based on those figures, Professional Sport Service had overpaid by €10,266.25, which the court stated converted to $11,710.94 as of November 22, 2018.

The court also noted that none of the seven defenses under the New York Convention had been shown and that Puck Agency had not disputed the underlying facts supporting this request. The court therefore confirmed this portion of the award.

Future commissions

The court denied Professional Sport Service’s request for future commissions. Although the arbitration award recognized a right to future commissions while the eight players remained represented by Puck Agency, Professional Sport Service offered only a declaration stating that its manager understood Puck Agency continued to represent the players. The court found that the declaration did not establish the manager’s personal knowledge, and the exhibits did not show that Puck Agency still represented the players or had received commissions from them.

The court also found that Professional Sport Service was improperly asking it to add amounts based on evidence not presented to the arbitrator. The award did not determine whether the players continued to be represented by Puck Agency or calculate the amount of future commissions. Confirming those amounts would therefore go beyond confirming the arbitration award. In addition, the projections for two future hockey seasons simply assumed the same commissions as the first season and were too speculative.

Disposition

The written decision states that Professional Sport Service’s motion to confirm the award was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It states that judgment would be entered for Professional Sport Service on every part of the petition except the request for future commissions, and that the case would be closed.

The attached order contains apparent transcription or formatting problems. It says the award was confirmed “in its entirety” and includes an unclear total amount, while its text also appears to reference the future-commission issue without stating a clear amount. That language conflicts with the decision’s express denial of the future-commission request.