{"title":"'Final' Awards Reconceptualized: A Proposal to Resolve the Hall Street Circuit Split","authors":"Matthew J. Brown","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2084936","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the current circuit split over the continued validity of manifest disregard of the law (“manifest disregard”) as a nonstatutory ground for vacatur of arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Today, as commercial parties decide whether to include arbitration agreements in their business contracts, they weigh the risks of proceeding to arbitration versus litigation to resolve their disputes. This topic is especially pertinent in light of the current economic climate. Dicta from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. called into question the continued validity of nonstatutory grounds for vacatur. The circuit courts have severely split on the question of one ground in particular: manifest disregard. Although seemingly ripe for review, the Supreme Court has appeared reluctant to resolve the issue, even side-stepping the Second Circuit’s opinion in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. and ruling on other grounds. Rather than opining on which side of the split should prevail, this article posits first that manifest disregard should never have been a valid ground for vacatur under the FAA. Next, the article takes a historical perspective that shows the FAA does not allow courts to look at the merits of an arbitration award. Instead, courts should look only to the award itself, determining its enforceability exclusive of the merits of the arbitrator’s or tribunal’s decision. Inquiry into the merits of the decision violates the FAA and damages arbitration’s finality and efficiency, two of the most important benefits of the arbitration bargain. Excluding the merits from judicial review conforms to FAA requirements and retains these two critical benefits. In other words, this article proposes a resolution to the circuit split that maintains the integrity of both the FAA and the arbitration process without excluding concerns surrounding a full abandonment of judicial review.","PeriodicalId":350514,"journal":{"name":"Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal","volume":"100 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2084936","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article discusses the current circuit split over the continued validity of manifest disregard of the law (“manifest disregard”) as a nonstatutory ground for vacatur of arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Today, as commercial parties decide whether to include arbitration agreements in their business contracts, they weigh the risks of proceeding to arbitration versus litigation to resolve their disputes. This topic is especially pertinent in light of the current economic climate. Dicta from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. called into question the continued validity of nonstatutory grounds for vacatur. The circuit courts have severely split on the question of one ground in particular: manifest disregard. Although seemingly ripe for review, the Supreme Court has appeared reluctant to resolve the issue, even side-stepping the Second Circuit’s opinion in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. and ruling on other grounds. Rather than opining on which side of the split should prevail, this article posits first that manifest disregard should never have been a valid ground for vacatur under the FAA. Next, the article takes a historical perspective that shows the FAA does not allow courts to look at the merits of an arbitration award. Instead, courts should look only to the award itself, determining its enforceability exclusive of the merits of the arbitrator’s or tribunal’s decision. Inquiry into the merits of the decision violates the FAA and damages arbitration’s finality and efficiency, two of the most important benefits of the arbitration bargain. Excluding the merits from judicial review conforms to FAA requirements and retains these two critical benefits. In other words, this article proposes a resolution to the circuit split that maintains the integrity of both the FAA and the arbitration process without excluding concerns surrounding a full abandonment of judicial review.
这篇文章讨论了目前巡回法院对“明显无视法律”(“明显无视”)作为根据《联邦仲裁法》(“FAA”)撤销仲裁裁决的非法定理由的持续有效性的分歧。今天,当商业当事人决定是否将仲裁协议纳入他们的商业合同时,他们会权衡通过仲裁还是诉讼来解决纠纷的风险。鉴于当前的经济形势,这一话题尤为贴切。美国最高法院在Hall Street Associates, L.L.C.诉Mattel, Inc.一案中的判决,对非法定理由的持续有效性提出了质疑。巡回法院在一个特别的理由上产生了严重分歧:明显无视。尽管审查时机似乎已经成熟,但最高法院似乎不愿解决这个问题,甚至回避第二巡回法院在斯托尔特-尼尔森公司诉动物饲料国际公司案中的意见,并以其他理由作出裁决。而不是意见的一方分裂应该占上风,这篇文章首先假设,明显的无视不应该是一个有效的理由,根据FAA。接下来,本文从历史的角度来看,FAA不允许法院查看仲裁裁决的是非曲性。相反,法院应该只考虑裁决本身,确定其可执行性,而不考虑仲裁员或仲裁庭裁决的是非曲实。调查裁决的优点违反了联邦航空局,损害了仲裁的终局性和效率,这是仲裁交易的两个最重要的好处。从司法审查中排除是非曲直符合FAA的要求,并保留了这两个关键的好处。换句话说,本文提出了一项决议,以维持联邦航空局和仲裁程序的完整性,而不排除对完全放弃司法审查的担忧。