Interactive seeks to vacate the arbitrators' decision, while the Claimants have filed a motion to confirm it. Faced with an inscrutable award, the Court can do neither in good faith, and instead will remand the matter to the arbitrators for clarification. 

[N]evertheless, even after giving the arbitrators every benefit of the doubt possible, the Court cannot concoct a scenario where the amount of compensatory damages awarded in this case make sense. And, because of the perplexing amount of damages awarded, the Court is also unable to determine which of the nine claims filed by Claimants was the source of liability. In such circumstances, without further explanation from the arbitrators, it is impossible to know whether the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law or simply made a mistake. O. R. Sec., Inc. v. Prof' l Planning Assocs., Inc., 857 F.2d 742, 747 (11th Cir. 1988). The Court will therefore remand this award to the arbitrators for clarification. 

Where the arbitrators do not give an explanation for their award, meaningful judicial review is "all but impossible." Dawahare v. Spencer, 210 F. 3d 666, Here, the Claimants presented nine is "all but impossible." 669 (6th Cir. 2000). Here, the Claimants presented nine claims. The arbitrators specifically explained that "[a]ny and all claims for relief not specifically addressed herein, including punitive damages, are denied." AWARD, ¶9. But, one cannot discern from the Arbitrators Report or the Award which claims for relief were, as the arbitrator put it, "specifically addressed." Moreover, it is impossible to determine how the damages awarded are related to any claim that was before the arbitrators. And, the Court cannot simply rubber stamp a damages award that it cannot explain. And, although the Court can hypothesize how Interactive was found liable in this case, the amount of damages awarded-the value of the Claimants' accounts on August 19, 2015-remains baffling. 

[T]here is nothing in the record to which a percentage fee award can be tethered, much less the percentages that appear in the award. meaningful review on that issue is not possible. 

"Judges . . . are not wallflowers or potted plants." Tagatz v. Marquette Univ., 861 F.2d 1040, 1045 (7th Cir. 1988). And this Court will not act as a rubber stamp. Because the Court cannot even theorize how calculating damages in the way done by the arbitrators would be proper, the Court will remand this arbitral decision back to the arbitrators for clarification as to the predicate for liability and the value of the damages awarded. Although the arbitrators need not give a full opinion, a brief explanation for the basis of the amount of damages awarded is necessary before any semblance of judicial review can be accomplished. The same is true as to the attorney's fee awards. The Court will defer ruling on the other aspects of the award until that explanation is received. Until that time, engaging in any additional evaluation of this award would amount to little more than a "judicial snipe-hunt." Federated Dep' t Stores, Inc. v. J.V.B. Indus., Inc., 894 F.2d 862, 871 (6th Cir. 1990) (J. Martin, concurring) . The Court declines to further pursue that endeavor.

[T]he district court held another hearing and again criticized the arbitration process. The court explained that it was "just astounded at the jackleg operation that I see here. I don't know why anybody would agree to have these people [the arbitrators] do anything." By written order, the court granted the Broker's motion to vacate the award in favor of the Investors and remanded the Broker's counterclaim to a new panel of arbitrators. The court reasoned that the arbitrators had based the Broker's liability to the Investors on FINRA Rule 4210, which was "a manifest disregard of the law because the law is clear that there is no private right of action to enforce FINRA rules."

SIDE BAR: Although I consider myself a wordsmith, I ha no idea what the hell "jackleg" means, so, I looked it up. Merriam Webster says it is "characterized by unscrupulousness, dishonesty, or lack of professional standards." Whoa, Judge Payne, so tell me, how did your really feel about the FINRA Arbitration process? 

In sum, the district court erred in vacating the modified award. The prolonged proceedings in this case - two arbitration awards, two district court orders, and two federal appeals - illustrate the need to avoid a "cumbersome and time-consuming judicial review process" that would "bring arbitration theory to grief." Hall St., 552 U.S. at 588 (quoting Kyocera, 341 F.3d at 988); see also Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 685 (naming "lower costs, greater efficiency and speed" as "benefits of private dispute resolution"). Without appropriate deference to arbitrators, the costs of vindicating rights drastically increase, threatening to foreclose yet another avenue of relief for ordinary consumers who routinely enter contracts with mandatory arbitration provisions. The modified award must be confirmed. 

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to confirm the modified arbitration award.

On remand, the arbitration panel did clarify how it had arrived at its damages figure, thereby revealing that it had ignored the law of damages. Explaining that it "could not consider what happened prior to the investment of cash on August 19, 2015 in the portfolio management accounts" because there was "no evidence of profits or losses" prior to that date, the panel forwent entirely any attempt to quantify the harm attributable to Interactive Brokers' wrongdoing. Instead of requesting evidence sufficient to make a damages determination or taking some other corrective action, the panel merely selected a date and decreed that the investors' damages equaled the value of their accounts on that date. As the district court had foreshadowed, the panel essentially confirmed that it had "manifestly disregarded the law of damages because it was easier than calculating the proper figure." This is not a mere misinterpretation of applicable law; it is an outright refusal to apply any law in the first instance. In short, the arbitration panel abdicated its role as fact-finder and disregarded the basic legal principles governing damages, resulting in an impermissible and extralegal award.

Thus, even under the majority's breach of contract theory, the award does not reflect an acceptable calculation of damages. Indeed, the arbitration panel specifically explained that, due to insufficient evidence, it did not consider profits and losses in the portfolio margin accounts between the accounts' creation and August 19. As such, it would have been impossible for the panel to arrive at a damages figure that would have restored the status quo. For instance, if the allegedly improper VXX trades executed prior to August 19 had caused the investors' accounts to gain in value, then the arbitration panel's failure to consider those trades in calculating damages would have resulted in an improperly inflated award. 

At bottom, neither breach of contract nor any other theory of liability would have permitted compensatory damages to be tied to the value of the investors' accounts on a single, specific date, with no consideration of what came before or after. Conceding that it could not calculate the proper damages figure for lack of evidence, the arbitration panel opted for the easier course - an award by simple fiat. That course, however, was unmoored to any legal principle governing damages and was therefore in manifest disregard of the law.