On February 10, 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Wiand v. Schneiderman, held that clawback actions to recover false profits are not categorically exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (No. 14-11203, (Feb. 10, 2015)).

Arthur Nadel orchestrated a Ponzi scheme for approximately ten years, which resulted in an SEC emergency enforcement action against Nadel, his investment-management companies and six hedge funds connected with the scheme. After the SEC moved for the appointment of a receiver, the district court appointed Burton Wiand as the receiver for the hedge funds to manage and preserve all assets. As receiver, Wiand was also appointed to recover the alleged false profits and redistribute any excess proceeds to investors. He subsequently filed a clawback action in January 2010 against an investor's estate who received payouts that included these false profits. The estate moved to compel arbitration based on a limited partnership agreement that provided that any arising disputes be submitted to arbitration. The district court granted the motion to compel. At arbitration, the arbitrator granted the estate's motion for summary judgment and entered an award dismissing Wiand's claims as barred by Florida probate statutes. Wiand then filed a motion seeking to vacate the award, which the district court denied. Wiand appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that clawback actions are not exempt from the FAA. Notably, the court found that there was no inherent conflict between arbitration and the underlying purpose of court-appointed receivers pursuing clawback claims under 28 U.S.C. § 754. Section 754 grants the receiver, and not the district court as Wiand contended, with complete control and jurisdiction of receivership properties. The "jurisdiction" mentioned in the statute therefore refers to the receiver's right to take charge of all the contested property, regardless of location, rather than the district court's authority to decide all the disputes related to the contested property. Because none of Wiand's other arguments had merit, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.