I have to confess something: I just returned from sunny California where I attended an excellent arbitrator training course put on by the American Arbitration Association and run by Dana Welch and Michael Powell! If you have an opportunity to take a course from either of them, I highly recommend it.
And, as it so
Okay, folks, we are still combating the summer slide here. Today’s refresher rule is this: If an arbitrator fails to disclose a substantial relationship, the resulting award can be vacated under 9 U.S. C. 10 (a)(2). But, not all relationships are substantial, as the cases today make clear.
Beginning in my backyard, the appellant in
A per curiam opinion from the 8th Circuit last week highlights that even if an arbitration goes off the rails, the only remedy is vacating (or confirming) the award. The parties cannot recover from the administrator of the arbitration.
In Owens v. American Arbitration Association, Inc., 2016 WL 6818858 (8th Cir. Nov. 18, 2016),
The Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled recently that if a neutral arbitrator fails to meet disclosure requirements, it constitutes “evident partiality” as a matter of law, and requires the vacatur of the arbitrator’s award. Furthermore, Hawaii interpreted its disclosure requirements broadly, and in this case found an arbitrator’s failure to disclose the “concrete possibility” of
Again this year, a famous athlete put the spotlight on the process of arbitration. Earlier this month, Tom Brady succeeded in convincing a federal judge to vacate the arbitration award against Brady. (The four-game “deflategate” suspension — a pdf of the decision is available through the link.)
The decision vacating the award is 40 pages
The Eleventh Circuit has a lesson for future litigants: the presence of a repeat player is not enough to show the evident partiality needed to vacate an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act.
In Johnson v. Directory Assistants, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2015 WL 4939578 (11th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015), an advertising company
Although we usually expect arbitrators to be impartial, the Supreme Court of Texas vacated an arbitration award because the chosen arbitrators were too impartial. Americo Life, Inc. v. Myer, __S.W.3d__, 2014 WL 2789429 (Tex. June 20, 2014). Because the court found the parties’ agreement allowed each side to choose an arbitrator who was partial
Today we take a close look at that rare creature: an opinion finding sufficient basis under the FAA to vacate an arbitration award. In Tenaska Energy Inc. v. Ponderosa Pine Energy, LLC, __S.W.3d __, 2014 WL 2139215 (Tex. May 23, 2014), the Supreme Court of Texas found an arbitrator had shown “evident partiality” due
One of the very few ways to show evident partiality by an arbitrator is to show the arbitrator had financial ties to a party or witness in the proceeding, another is to show the arbitrator prejudiced a party by reversing a procedural or evidentiary ruling during the hearing. The Sixth Circuit found a Michigan arbitrator
The Fifth Circuit has issued a harsh reminder that in order to preserve issues of arbitrator bias for appeal, the bias must have been raised before the arbitration award was issued.
In Dealer Computer Servs. v. Michael Motor Co., 2012 WL 3317809 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2012), one party (DCS) received a unanimous and favorable