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

The Third Circuit refused to vacate an arbitrator’s award, despite allegations that she failed to disclose contributions the defendant’s parent company had made to her judicial campaign and failed to disclose that she co-taught a seminar with in-house counsel for the defendant’s parent company.  Freeman v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, __ F.3d __, 2013 WL

It must be near the end of the clerk year, because courts are going gangbusters issuing opinions.  Today, a roundup of three arbitration decisions from Southern states.  Notably, Louisiana makes it tough for lawyers to enforce arbitration agreements with their clients.

After prominently noting that the lower court rulings were “eminently reasonable, logical and just,”