The Third Circuit ruled last week that Delaware’s Chancery Court could not offer its judges’ services as neutral arbitrators in its courtrooms, unless those arbitrations were open to the public.
In 2009, the Delaware courts decided to provide arbitration. The state amended its laws to create an arbitration process that was only open to disputes worth more than a million dollars with at least one party being a business incorporated in Delaware (and no party being a consumer). The parties did not need to have a pre-dispute arbitration agreement. As long as they both consented, they could file their arbitration in the Delaware courts for a$12,000 initial fee and have the Chancellor select a Chancery Court judge to hear the arbitration in the Delaware courthouse (for another $6,000/day). However, “the statute and rules governing Delaware’s proceedings bar public access.” Only parties and their representatives could attend the proceedings.
In Delaware Coalition for Open Government, Inc. v. Strine, __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 5737309 (3d Cir. Oct. 23, 2013), the Third Circuit found that it violates the First Amendment to bar the public from Delaware business arbitrations. Applying the “experience and logic” test (sounds like the kind of test courts should always apply!), the Court found “[w]hen we properly account for the type of proceeding that Delaware has instituted — a binding arbitration before a judge that takes place in a courtroom…the right of access to government-sponsored is deeply rooted in the way the judiciary functions in a democratic society.” Further, the court noted that public access would be beneficial for stockholders, ensure transparency of the process, and discourage perjury. For all those reasons, the Third Circuit found a right of public access to state-sponsored arbitrations in Delaware.
I haven’t heard of other states trying to compete with the AAA, so this decision does not have broader implications, but it is worth pondering whether the same benefits of public access the Third Circuit noted in this case also apply to private arbitrations.
Now for some brief updates on recent topics:
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review of this case, in which the Minnesota Court of Appeals confirmed an arbitration award involving a significant sanction against a party who was accused of manufacturing evidence.
- The defense of illusoriness is still on the upswing. Last week the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s refusal to compel arbitration based on a finding that the agreement was illusory under Texas law. Scudiero v. Radio One of Texas II, 2013 WL 5755484 (5th Cir. Oct. 24, 2013).
- In case anyone thought Sutter was limited to deference for arbitrators who find arbitration agreements allow for class actions, the Eleventh Circuit clarified the same deference applies to arbitrator decisions to allow collective actions as well. DirecTV v. Arndt, 2013 WL 5718384 (11th Cir. Oct. 22, 2013).
- A thoughtful reader drew my attention to a case the U.S. Supreme Court will hear on November 13: Unite HERE Local 355 v. Mulhall. The central question in the case is one of labor law, not arbitration, but the labor law questions were interpreted by arbitrators under the parties’ agreement, and the National Academy of Arbitrators has weighed in to support the use of “pre-recognitional governance systems” including arbitration.