This article first appeared in the Securities Arbitration Alert Blog.
As reported in SAA 2021-19 (May 20), the Supreme Court on May 17 denied Certiorari in Seldin v. Estate of Silverman, 305 Neb. 185 (Mar. 6, 2020), covered previously in SAA 2020-11 (Mar. 18).
There, a unanimous Nebraska Supreme Court held that an arbitration Award cannot be challenged under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) based on public policy violations. Said the Court: “Prior to 2008, a circuit split existed on whether courts could apply nonstatutory standards when reviewing arbitration awards under the FAA…. In Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the split and held that under the FAA, courts lack authority to vacate or modify arbitration awards on any grounds other than those specified in §§ 10 and 11 of the FAA…. Because the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. abrogated public policy as grounds for vacating an arbitration award under the FAA, we … hold that under the FAA, a court is not authorized to vacate an arbitration award based on public policy grounds because public policy is not one of the exclusive statutory grounds set forth in § 10 of the FAA.”
The questions presented in the denied Petition for Certiorari were: “1. Whether the FAA categorically forecloses courts from vacating an arbitration award on the ground that the award is contrary to public policy. 2. Whether the FAA’s protection against an arbitrator’s ‘evident partiality’ (9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2)) is triggered when there is a reasonable impression of partiality, or instead by a more heightened standard such as a showing of actual bias.”
(ed: *We’re not surprised. **Selden, No. 20-895, is on page 3 of the Order List.)
First published on Thomson Reuters Practical Law Arbitration Blog, here. The principle of party autonomy is expressed and enshrined in section 34(1) of the English Arbitration Act 1996: the right of...
By Ruth HoskingThis article first eppared on the JAMS ADR Blog, here. I just finished my first virtual arbitration, which involved a multi-million-dollar dispute between a large medical system and an extensive...
By Adrienne PublicoverThis article first appeared on Urbas Arbitral, here. In Abittan v. Wilcox, 2020 ONSC 6836, Mr. Justice Frederick L. Myers reiterated the “consequences” of agreeing to submit disputes to arbitration, limiting...
By Daniel Urbas
With the purchase of a Featured Membership, you will be shown on the front page of Arbitrate.com to web site visitors from your city and region (“state” if you are in the USA). You may appear in more than one city/region by purchasing additional locations.