As expected attendance was modest – no doubt the result of the cost-cutting mandated by economic conditions, coupled with reduced reinsurance-dispute frequency and severity — but the conference was nevertheless a great success.  The presentations were thoughtful, interesting and professionally useful, and the smaller group of attendees not only facilitated robust – and sometimes, spirited – discussions during the program, but also provided a relaxed atmosphere conducive to networking during the breaks.  I, for one, returned home with “fresh perspectives” on a number of reinsurance-related issues, and those perspectives have proved to be good fodder for brainstorming.

Conference co-chairs Edward K. Lenci (Partner, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, New York, NY), Leslie J. Davis (Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, Gen Re; Senior Vice President & General Counsel, United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc.), and Wendy R. Taylor (Vice President and Associate Counsel, Chubb & Son, a division of Federal Insurance Company), outdid themselves on this one.  All three devoted a great deal of time and effort into organizing and implementing the conference over a several month period.  Ed spearheaded the effort and was the event’s chief moderator, while Wendy did double duty as a co-manager and faculty member.   Wendy also had the honor of introducing the keynote speaker, Commissioner Thomas B. Considine of the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (Commissioner Considine also chairs the National Association of Insurance Commissioners‘ Reinsurance Task Force).  Ed’s, Wendy’s and Leslie’s hard work and devotion paid great dividends to all who attended.

Conference-sponsor HarrisMartin Publishing likewise did a superb job organizing, implementing, and promoting the event, and handling all of the administrative, technical, and CLE-related details.  The three key players were Conference Director Vicki Gilbreath; Reinsurance Report Editor Marcy Kowalchuk, whom I’ve known since she was a Mealey’s Reinsurance Reports editor some years back; and Editorial Director Jeff Andrus.  All three worked diligently and intensely on the project, and demonstrated their impressive editorial, publishing, promotional and event-management skills in the process.  They were quick with an effective solution whenever there was a problem.

Of course, the conference might have been a rather mind-numbing and painful way to earn CLE credit were it not for the superb faculty, all of whom delivered and facilitated interesting and thought provoking discussion and debate on several diverse reinsurance-related topics, and did so with great enthusiasm, skill and aplomb.  Their credentials and reputations speak for themselves:

Finally, I’d like to thank Richard D. Faulkner, a name partner at the Richardson, Texas-based firm of Blume, Faulkner, Skeen & Northam, who traveled all the way from the Dallas, Texas area to join me as a co-panelist on “The Judicial Scrutiny of Arbitration Awards” panel.   Rick — who was recently appointed Fifth Circuit appellate counsel for Michael Motor Company, Inc. in Dealer Computer Svcs., Inc. v. Michael Motor Co., No. H-10-2132, slip op. (S.D. Tex. December 29, 2010), appeal pending No. 11-20053 (5^th Cir.) — is an experienced commercial litigator who handles commercial and insurance arbitrations here and abroad, a Chartered Institute of Arbitrators certified arbitrator in commercial and insurance cases, a frequently sought-after mediator, a member of the Texas House of Representatives Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee’s Arbitration Advisory Group, and a member of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (“CPR”)’s Arbitration Committee.  He was a contributing author to the American Bar Association publication, Elkouri & Elkouri, How Arbitration Works (6th Ed.), served as a trial judge in Louisiana, and is a former professor of Alternative Dispute Resolution law who has taught in Texas, England and Asia.

At the conference Rick and I discussed, among other things, some of the key differences between Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 732 F. Supp.2d 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), appeal pending No. 10-910-cv (2d Cir.), and Dealer Computer, both of which concern arbitrator nondisclosure of alleged conflicts of interest (Dealer Computer also raises arbitrator qualification issues governed by Section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act.)

We were very happy with the presentation, which was well-received by attendees and other faculty members.  It was quite an honor to share the podium with Rick, and I hope we’ll collaborate on future projects.

The article is reprinted below with permission, and I would like to thank Elaine Song, a member of the New York Law Journal’s editorial staff, for her assistance and work in getting this published in New York’s leading legal trade publication.  

Reprinted with permission from the May 18, 2011 edition of the New York Law Journal© 2010 ALM media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. For information, contact 877-257-3382, reprints@alm.com or visit www.almreprints.com:

Outside Counsel

Arbitrator Evident Partiality Standard Under Scrutiny in ‘Scandinavian Re’

Philip J. Loree Jr. ContactAll Articles

New York Law Journal

May 18, 2011

•  Twitter
•  del.icio.us
•  Digg
•  Reddit
•  Google Bookmarks
•  Newsvine
•  LinkedIn
•  Mixx
•  Stumbleupon
• Print
• Share
• Email
• Reprints & Permissions
• Post a Comment

Philip J. Loree Jr.

Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) authorizes federal district courts to vacate arbitration awards “where there was evident partiality…in the arbitrators….”¹ Just as 28 U.S.C. §455 imposes impartiality requirements on federal judges, so too does Section 10(a)(2) on arbitrators.

To implement Section 10(a)(2)’s arbitral impartiality standards, courts have imposed on neutral arbitrators a duty to disclose circumstances that establish evident partiality. The scope of the duty to disclose relationships and interests that disqualify a neutral on evident partiality grounds, and what types of interests and relationships can establish evident partiality, are topics muddled by unclear, semantically malleable standards, which sometimes baffle judges, arbitrators, and in-house and outside counsel.

The pending appeal in Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.² presents the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with an opportunity to provide additional, meaningful guidance on arbitral impartiality standards, including arbitrator disclosure obligations. There the district court vacated a final arbitration award on evident partiality grounds even though none of the arbitrators had personal or financial relationships with the parties or interests in the outcome. The district court said the award had to be vacated because two of the arbitrators did not disclose to the parties facts about their involvement in an allegedly related proceeding—facts that would have no bearing on whether a similarly situated federal judge was impartial under much stricter judicial impartiality standards.

The question the court will decide is whether FAA Section 10(a)(2) authorized the district court to vacate the award under these circumstances. The answer should be “no,” and here’s why.

The District Court Decision

Scandinavian Re arose from a petition to vacate a final award issued by three experienced, well-known and respected industry arbitrators appointed to resolve a reinsurance dispute. The district court vacated the award because two arbitrators (one neutral, one party-appointed) did not disclose their temporally overlapping service on another arbitration panel hearing a case the district court characterized as concerning: (a) a common witness; (b) “similar” issues; (c) “similar” contract terms; (d) “the same type of reinsurance business”; and (e) a party that was the successor-in-interest to reinsurance business the prevailing party in the Scandinavian Re arbitration had assumed. (The parties dispute the accuracy of these findings, but, as we shall see, that doesn’t matter.)

The district court held that the arbitrators’ undisclosed, overlapping service in the other arbitration created “a material conflict of interest” establishing evident partiality:

[T]he Scandinavian Re Arbitration and the [other arbitration] were presided over by two common arbitrators, overlapped in time, shared similar issues, involved related parties, included…a common witness that supported interpreting [the agreement in the other arbitration] as written but interpreting the Scandinavian Re Agreement in light of Scandinavian Re’s intent at the time it entered into the agreement. Additionally, [another witness] was employed by [a party in the other arbitration which had purchased reinsurance business originally assumed by the prevailing party in the Scandinavian Re arbitration] at the time she appeared as a witness in the Scandinavian Re Arbitration. By participating in both [arbitrations, the arbitrators] placed themselves in a position where they could receive ex parte information about the kind of reinsurance business at issue in the Scandinavian Re Arbitration, be influenced by recent credibility determinations they made as a result of [the common witness'] testimony in [the other arbitration], and influence each other’s thinking on issues relevant to the Scandinavian Re Arbitration. By failing to disclose their participation in the [other arbitration], [the two arbitrators] deprived Scandinavian Re of an opportunity to object to their service on both arbitration panels and/or adjust their arbitration strategy….³

Analysis

The case turns on whether the Scandinavian Re arbitrators met arbitral impartiality standards, which are more demanding than judicial impartiality standards.⁴ While federal judges are disqualified for partiality “in any proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned”—a/k/a the “appearance of bias” standard—in the Second Circuit “an arbitrator is disqualified [for evident partiality] only when a reasonable person, considering all of the circumstances, ‘would have to conclude that [the] arbitrator was partial to one side.’”⁵

Conventional wisdom suggests the Second Circuit should simply determine whether “a reasonable person…would have to conclude” the arbitrators were partial. But the Second Circuit can (and should) decide Scandinavian Re under explicitly defined standards set forth by statute and interpreted by U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts: the judicial impartiality standards.

Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has demonstrated that initially considering whether arbitrators met judicial impartiality standards can greatly simplify the resolution of many evident partiality (and certain contractual, arbitrator-qualification) questions, because doing so not only avoids the philosophical debate and policy-oriented analysis that the “reasonable person would have to conclude” test invites, but in many cases, including Scandinavian Re, can provide added assurance about the validity of the outcome. For if arbitrators satisfy judicial impartiality standards, they necessarily satisfy arbitral ones, which are less demanding.⁶

What Are the Judicial Standards? The statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 455, sets forth the judicial impartiality standards that a federal judge must meet in each case over which he or she presides. Section 455(a) describes a “catchall,” “appearance of bias” impartiality standard: “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”⁷ Section 455(b) sets out specific circumstances under which a judge is disqualified from hearing a case because of actual bias or prejudice or certain personal, financial or professional relationships or interests that are presumed to conflict with the parties’ interest in having an impartial decision maker.⁸

Judges who do not meet these demanding judicial impartiality standards in any given case are obligated to recuse themselves, that is, to step aside and let another judge hear the matter. If they do not do so, and an appellate court rules they should have, then their orders and judgments may be vacated.

Were the ‘Scandinavian Re’ Arbitrators Disqualified Under §455(b)? The best way to assess impartiality under §455 is to consider first whether the arbitrators—were they federal judges—would have been disqualified on §455(b) grounds. The only §455(b) ground that might provide even a barely plausible basis for challenging impartiality in a case like Scandinavian Re is §455(b)(1), which requires judges to disqualify themselves “[w]here [they have]…a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”⁹ But the Scandinavian Re arbitrators did not violate subsection 455(b)(1).

In Liteky v. United States,¹⁰ the Supreme Court explained that predispositions judges reach based on information obtained in an adjudicative capacity do not evidence Section 455(b)(1) “bias” or “prejudice,” except in extraordinary circumstances. The Court said the terms “bias” and “prejudice” “connote a favorable or unfavorable disposition or opinion that is somehow wrongful or inappropriate, either because it is undeserved, or because it rests upon knowledge that the subject ought not to possess…or because it is excessive in degree….”¹¹ Under the so-called “extrajudicial source doctrine,” alleged “bias” or “prejudice” generally cannot be based on knowledge obtained from participation in judicial proceedings, or on predispositions reasonably formed as a result, because there is nothing wrongful or inappropriate about judges having such knowledge or predispositions.¹²

Knowledge obtained from other proceedings; judicial opinions reached during those proceedings concerning applicable law and its application to facts; and judicial views formed during those proceedings concerning a party’s or witness’ credibility or character may cause a judge to be favorably or unfavorably disposed to a particular position, party or witness. But absent “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible,” those predispositions are not “wrongful” or “inappropriate” and thus do not establish bias or prejudice.¹³

Assuming for argument’s sake that the district court’s factual findings were accurate, at most the Scandinavian Re arbitrators served in two proceedings featuring a common witness, some similar issues and contract terms, the same type of reinsurance business, and a related party. Even if there were no “extrajudicial source doctrine,” those facts would hardly suggest §455(b)(1) “bias” or “prejudice.”

But assuming (in the absence of evidentiary support) the arbitrators’ service in the other arbitration influenced their thinking in the Scandinavian Re arbitration, there is nothing wrongful or inappropriate about a judge—or by extension, an arbitrator—having or using in proceeding B knowledge or experience properly obtained in an adjudicative capacity from proceeding A.¹⁴ And nobody—including the district court judge—says that the arbitrators’ participation in the other arbitration resulted in “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”¹⁵

The Scandinavian Re arbitrators also had no “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” Section 455(b)(1)’s other basis for disqualification. Perhaps the arbitrators had already heard in one proceeding testimony on factual issues common to both, including testimony from a common witness. Perhaps they were already familiar with the relevant contract wording, which allegedly was similar.

But that doesn’t mean they obtained personal knowledge of the facts established or advocated in the other arbitration and thus could testify as fact witnesses in that arbitration, let alone in the Scandinavian Re arbitration. No one claims they were involved in or had personal knowledge of the disputed transactions; whatever knowledge they had was obtained solely in an adjudicative capacity.

Were the ‘Scandinavian Re’ Arbitrators Disqualified Under §455(a)? The only remaining question is whether the arbitrators were disqualified under §455(a)’s catchall, “appearance of bias” standard. Liteky provides an easy answer: A judge’s “impartiality” cannot “reasonably be questioned” where, as in Scandinavian Re, the alleged impartiality is based on knowledge obtained or opinions or views formed by the judge in the ordinary course of legitimately discharging his or her adjudicative responsibilities in another proceeding.¹⁶

Was There Any Legitimate Basis for the District Court’s Decision? The answer is “no.” Even if the strict judicial impartiality standards applied to the Scandinavian Re arbitrators, they satisfied them, and that necessarily means they satisfied the more lenient ones imposed by §10(a)(2).

The district court’s conclusion that the arbitrators had a “material conflict of interest” was therefore misplaced. The district court said the arbitrators “placed themselves in a position where they could receive ex parte information about the kind of reinsurance business at issue in the Scandinavian Re arbitration, be influenced by recent credibility determinations they made as a result of [the common witness'] testimony in [the other arbitration], and influence each other’s thinking on issues relevant to the Scandinavian Re Arbitration.”¹⁷ But a decision maker cannot have a “conflict of interest” unless he or she has a personal or financial interest in the outcome of the matter that conflicts with the parties’ interest in the decision maker’s impartiality.¹⁸ Liteky forecloses any argument that a decision maker’s discharge of legitimate adjudicative functions in matter A can create an “interest” in the outcome of related matter B, let alone a conflicting one.¹⁹

The risk that the arbitrators might “influence each other’s thinking on” allegedly similar, common issues likewise does not create a conflict of interest or otherwise establish evident partiality. That risk is present to some degree in appellate courts that use rotating, three-judge panels, and is particularly high in the U.S. Supreme Court, where the same nine justices generally hear each case. But nobody thinks that federal judges or Supreme Court justices must recuse themselves in matter B simply because they served together on the Court when it heard related matter A, and thus might influence each other’s thinking in matter B.

But Didn’t the Arbitrators Fail to Disclose Their Service on the Other Arbitration Panel? Some may think that the Second Circuit should affirm the district court because the arbitrators did not disclose their involvement in the other arbitration. They may think that the arbitrators’ failure to disclose their service amounted to evident partiality because it allegedly evidenced some deceptive motive on the arbitrators’ part that somehow spoiled the award. Alternatively, some may, like the district court judge, think that the arbitrators’ nondisclosure somehow “deprived Scandinavian Re of an opportunity to object to their service on both arbitration panels and/or adjust their arbitration strategy,”²⁰—even though an evident-partiality conclusion does not follow from that doubtful premise.

These arguments are misplaced for several reasons, but it is enough to say that accepting them would impose on arbitrators impartiality standards far more onerous than those federal judges must meet.

In the Second Circuit, courts may vacate awards for evident partiality where arbitrators fail to disclose a “material relationship with…a party” or a material interest—financial or personal—in the outcome of the arbitration.²¹ There is nothing controversial about that, for an arbitrator’s material relationship with a party or person or material financial interest in the outcome would establish partiality under both judicial and arbitral impartiality standards.

But in Scandinavian Re the undisclosed circumstances provided no basis for disqualification under Sections 455(a) or (b), which means that not even a federal judge would have been obligated to disclose them.²² The Scandinavian Re arbitrators were not required to disclose anything that a similarly situated federal judge would not have to disclose, and the Second Circuit should so rule.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is a partner at Loree & Loree in Manhasset.

Endnotes:

1. 9 U.S.C. §10(a)(2).

2. No. 09 Civ. 9531(SAS), 2010 WL 653481 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2010).

3. Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 09 Civ. 9531(SAS), 2010 WL 653481, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2010), appeal pending No. 10-910-cv (2d Cir.).

4. See Applied Indus. Materials Corp. v. Ovalar, 492 F. 3d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 2007); Morelite Constr. Corp. v. New York City Dist. Council Carpenters Benefit Fund, 748 F.2d 79, 83-84 (2d Cir. 1984).

5. Ovalar, 492 F.3d at 137 (quoting Morelite, 748 F.2d at 84 (emphasis added)).

6. See Trustmark Ins. Co. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A.), No. 09-3682, 2011 WL 285156 (7th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011) (Easterbrook, C.J.); Sphere Drake Ins. Co. v. All American Life Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2002) (Easterbrook, J.).

7. 28 U.S.C. §455(a).

8. 28 U.S.C. §455(b).

9. 28 U.S.C. §455(b)(1).

10. 510 U.S.540, 550 (1994) (Scalia, J.).

11. See 510 U.S. at 550 (emphasis in original).

12. 510 U.S. at 550.

13. 510 U.S. 550-51 & 555-56 (citations omitted).

14. See 510 U.S. at 550.

15. 510 U.S. at 555.

16. 510 U.S. at 552.

17. 2010 WL 653481 at *8.

18. See, generally, Trustmark, 2011 WL 285156, at *3.

19. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 550-51 & 552-55; Trustmark, 2011 WL 285156, at *3.

20. See 2010 WL 653481, at *8.

21. Applied Indus. Materials, 492 F.3d at 137 (material financial relationship with a party); see also Pitta v. Hotel Assoc. of New York City, 806 F.2d 419, 423-24 (2d Cir. 1986) (material personal interest in the outcome); Morelite, 748 F.2d at 84-85 (father-son relationship with a party).

22. See Sphere Drake, 307 F.3d at 622.

I.       Introduction

Parts I and II of this three-part post discussed Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook’s decision in Trustmark Ins. Co. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A.), No. 09-3682, 2011 WL 285156 (7^th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011), and said that Trustmark, in conjunction with  Sphere Drake Ins. Co. v. All American Life Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 617, 622 (7th Cir. 2002) (Easterbrook, J.),  demonstrates that the district court should not have vacated on evident partiality grounds the arbitration award in Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co, No. 09 Civ. 9531(SAS), 2010 WL 653481 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2010).     This Part III.A explains some of the reasons why that is so.    

II.        Background:  Scandinavian Re

In Scandinavian Re the district court vacated the award on alleged Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(2) “evident partiality” grounds on the theory that  two arbitrators (one neutral, one party-appointed) did not disclose their temporally-overlapping service on another arbitration panel hearing a dispute that the district court characterized as involving:  (a) a common witness; (b) one or two “similar” issues; (c) “similar” contract terms; (d) “the same type of reinsurance business”; and (e) a party that had succeeded to reinsurance business assumed by the party in whose favor the award was made.  The parties dispute whether the two arbitrations involved “similar” issues and contract terms, or even the “same type of reinsurance business,” but irrespective of how the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ultimately resolves those disputes, it will not change the outcome warranted by Trustmark and Sphere Drake.  This post therefore assumes – and for the sake of argument only — that the district court accurately portrayed the facts.      

According to the district court, the arbitrators’ overlapping service in the other arbitration created “a material conflict of interest”:

[T]he Scandinavian Re Arbitration and the [other] arbitration were presided over by two common arbitrators, overlapped in time, shared similar issues, involved related parties, included.  .  .  a common witness that supported interpreting [the agreement in the other arbitration] as written but interpreting the Scandinavian Re Agreement in light of Scandinavian Re’s intent at the time it entered into the agreement.  Additionally, [another witness] was employed by [the party in the other arbitration that had succeeded to business assumed by the prevailing party in the Scandinavian Re Arbitration] at the time she appeared as a witness in the Scandinavian Re Arbitration.  By participating in both the Scandinavian Re Arbitration and [the other arbitration], [the two arbitrators] placed themselves in a position where they could receive ex parte information about the kind of reinsurance business at issue in the Scandinavian Re Arbitration, be influenced by recent credibility determinations they made as a result of [the common witness’] testimony in [the other arbitration], and influence each other’s thinking on issues relevant to the Scandinavian Re Arbitration.  By failing to disclose their participation in the [other arbitration], [the two arbitrators] deprived Scandinavian Re of an opportunity to object to their service on both arbitration panels and/or adjust their arbitration strategy.  .  .  .  

2010 WL 653481 at *8. 

II.      Applying Trustmark/Sphere Drake to the Scandinavian Re Facts

Scandinavian Re turns on whether the arbitrators displayed “evident partiality” within the meaning of Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(2).  9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2).  Section 10(a)(2) does not define “evident partiality,” but both the Second and Seventh Circuits have declared that “arbitrators are not subject to the same standards of impartiality as [federal] judges.”   Applied Indus. Materials Corp. v. Ovalar, 492 F. 3d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Morelite Constr. Corp. v. New York City Dist. Council Carpenters Benefit Fund, 748 F.2d 79, 83-84 (2d Cir. 1984)); Sphere Drake, 307 F.3d at 621. 

A.    The Trustmark/Sphere Drake Analytical Framework

 Trustmark and Sphere Drake demonstrate that evident-partiality cases like Scandinavian Re can frequently be disposed of by assessing whether the asserted basis for evident partiality would, under the strict standards of impartiality applicable to federal judges (the “Judicial Impartiality Standards”), disqualify a judge from hearing the matter were it pending in federal court.  If the answer is “no,” then the evident partiality challenge must fail.     

Trustmark’s analytical framework is based on Sphere Drake.  There the Court rejected an evident partiality challenge based on a non-neutral, party-appointed arbitrator’s alleged failure to disclose (or fully disclose) his prior legal representation of one of the parties in a four-year-old, unrelated matter.  The Court said that the non-neutral arbitrator satisfied Judicial Impartiality Standards, and, even assuming he were a neutral, his award could not be vacated for evident partiality.  See 307 F.3d at 621-22.  The arbitrator’s failure to disclose was irrelevant, because not even a federal judge would have been required to disclose anything under Judicial Impartiality Standards.  See 307 F.3d at 622. 

B.      Did the Scandinavian Re Arbitrators Meet Judicial Impartiality Standards?

 1.      What Are those Standards?   

28 U.S.C. Section 455 sets forth the Judicial Impartiality Standards, which federal judges must meet in each case over which they preside.   Section 455(a) describes a “catchall” impartiality standard:  “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”  Section 455(b) sets out specific circumstances under which a judge is disqualified from hearing a case because of actual bias or prejudice or certain interests or relationships:    

 (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

Judges who do not meet these demanding Judicial Impartiality Standards in any given case are obligated to recuse themselves, that is, step aside and let another judge hear the case. If they do not do so, and it turns out an appellate court thinks they should have, then their orders and/or judgments may be vacated, and the parties may need to relitigate the case before a properly-qualified judge.   

2.      Did the Scandinavian Re Arbitrators Meet the Requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)? 

The most efficient way to analyze impartiality questions under Section 455 is to start with the specific (Section 455(b)) and move to the general (Section 455(a)).  There is nothing in Section 455(b) that even arguably suggests that the arbitrators in Scandinavian Re would be subject to disqualification if that rule applied to them.   

Subsection 455(b)(1) is the only one that might provide even a barely plausible basis for challenging an arbitrator in a case like Scandinavian Re.  But even assuming the accuracy of the district court’s factual findings, the Scandinavian Re arbitrators did not violate subsection 455(b)(1).        

First, there is no evidence of any “bias” or “prejudice,” both of which terms have a “pejorative connotation.” See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.540, 550 (1994) (Scalia, J.).  Under the “extrajudicial source doctrine,” “bias” or “prejudice” generally cannot be based on knowledge obtained from participation in judicial proceedings, or on predispositions legitimately reached as a result, because there is nothing wrongful or inappropriate about judges having that kind of knowledge or developing those predispositions.  As the United States Supreme Court pointed out in Liteky:    

Not all unfavorable disposition towards an individual (or his case) is properly described by th[e] [terms ‘bias or prejudice’].  One would not say, for example, that world opinion is biased or prejudiced against Adolf Hitler.  The words connote a favorable or unfavorable disposition or opinion that is somehow wrongful or inappropriate, either because it is undeserved or because it rests upon knowledge that the subject ought not to possess (for example, a criminal juror who has been biased or prejudiced by receipt of inadmissible evidence concerning the defendant’s prior criminal activities), or because it is excessive in degree (for example, a criminal juror who is so inflamed by properly admitted evidence of a defendant’s prior criminal activities that he will vote guilty regardless of the facts).  The ‘extrajudicial source’ doctrine is one application of this pejorativeness requirement to the terms ‘bias’ and ‘prejudice’ as they are used in [§].  .  .  455(b)(1) with specific reference to the work of judges. 

510 U.S. at 550 (emphasis in original).

Knowledge obtained from other proceedings; judicial opinions reached during those proceedings concerning applicable law and its application to facts; and judicial views formed during those proceedings concerning a party’s or witness’ credibility or character, may cause a judge to be favorably or unfavorably disposed to a particular position, party or witness.  But in the vast majority of cases those predispositions are in no way “wrongful” or “inappropriate”: 

The judge who presides at a trial may, upon completion of the evidence, be exceedingly ill disposed towards the defendant, who has been shown to be a thoroughly reprehensible person.  But the judge is not thereby recusable for bias or prejudice, since his knowledge and the opinion it produced were properly and necessarily acquired in the course of the proceedings, and are indeed sometimes (as in a bench trial) necessary to completion of the judge’s task.  .  .  .  Also not subject to deprecatory characterization as ‘bias’ or ‘prejudice’ are opinions held by judges as a result of what they learned in earlier proceedings.  It has long been regarded as normal and proper for a judge to sit in the same case upon its remand, and to sit in successive trials involving the same defendant.

.  .  .  . 

[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.  In and of themselves (i.e., apart from surrounding comments or accompanying opinion), they cannot possibly show reliance upon an extradjudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required.  .  . when no extrajudicial source is involved.  .  .  .  [In addition,] opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. .  .  . 

510 U.S. 550-51 & 555-56 (citations omitted; emphasis in original). 

Even assuming the correctness of the district court’s factual findings, at most the Scandinavian Re arbitrators served in two proceedings featuring a common witness, some similar issues and contract terms, the same type of reinsurance business, and a related party.  The source of any alleged “bias” or “prejudice” was not “extradjudical,” and therefore it was presumptively proper and appropriate for the arbitrators to have whatever knowledge they obtained from their participation in the other proceeding, and any predispositions resulting from it.  See 510 U.S. at 550.  And that presumption was not rebutted, because there was no evidence of “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”  Id.  Judges serve in related proceedings all the time – even simultaneously.  They likewise hear cases involving identical issues, even ones involving one or more common parties.  But nobody legitimately considers such service wrongful or inappropriate, let alone a basis for disqualification.    

Second, the Scandinavian Re arbitrators had no “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” Section 455(b)(1)’s other ground for disqualification.  Perhaps the arbitrators had already heard in one proceeding testimony on factual issues allegedly common to both, including testimony from a common witness.  Perhaps they were already quite familiar with the relevant contract wording, which allegedly was similar. 

But that doesn’t mean they obtained personal knowledge of the facts established in the other proceeding and thus could testify as fact witnesses.  No one claims they were involved in the underlying transactions that gave rise to either dispute; their involvement was solely in an adjudicative capacity.  As Chief Judge Easterbrook put it in Trustmark:

[J]udges regularly hear multiple suits arising from the same controversy.  The district judge who resolved this very dispute also entered the order enforcing the 2004 award. If knowing about what happened in 2004 is an impermissible “interest,” or makes the person a “fact witness” about what had occurred in 2004, then the district judge should have stepped aside from the current suit. Yet that was not required.  .  .  .

2011 WL 285156, at *3.

3.      Were the Scandinavian Re Arbitrators Subject to Disqualification Under § 455(a)?  

Having determined the arbitrators were not subject to disqualification under Section 455(b) (assuming it applied to them), the only remaining question is whether they were subject to disqualification under Section 455(a)’s catchall standard, which requires disqualification where a judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”  28 U.S.C. § 455(a).  Liteky provides a refreshingly straightforward answer:  a judge’s “impartiality” cannot “reasonably be questioned” where, as in Scandinavian Re, the alleged impartiality is based on knowledge obtained, or opinions or views formed, by the judge in the ordinary course of legitimately discharging his or her adjudicative responsibilities in another proceeding:    

[T]he pejorative connotation of the terms ‘bias’ and ‘prejudice’ demands that they be applied only to judicial predispositions that go beyond what is normal and acceptable.  We think there is an equivalent pejorative connotation, with equivalent consequences, to the term ‘partiality.’  See American Heritage Dictionary 1319 (3d ed. 1992) (‘partiality’ defined as ‘[f]avorable prejudice or bias’).  A prospective juror in an insurance claim case may be stricken as partial if he always votes for insurance companies; but not if he always votes for the party whom the terms of the contract support.  ‘Partiality’ does not refer to all favoritism, but only to such as is, for some reason, wrongful or inappropriate.  Impartiality is not gullibility.  Moreover, even if the pejorative connotation of ‘partiality’ were not enough to import the ‘extrajudicial source’ doctrine into § 455(a), the ‘reasonableness’ limitation (recusal is required only if the judge’s impartiality ‘might reasonably be questioned’) would have the same effect.  To demand the sort of ‘child-like innocence’ that elimination of the ‘extrajudicial source’ limitation would require is not reasonable. 

510 U.S. at 552. 

IV.  Was There any Legitimate Basis for the District Court’s Decision to Vacate the Scandinavian Re Arbitration Award?

The answer is “no.”  Even if the strict Judicial Impartiality Standards applied to Scandinavian Re arbitrators, they satisfied them, and that means they necessarily satisfied the more lenient ones imposed by Section 10(a)(2). 

A.  There Was No “Conflict of Interest”

The district court’s conclusion that the arbitrators had a “conflict of interest” was misplaced.  The district court said the arbitrators “placed themselves in a position where they could receive ex parte information about the kind of reinsurance business at issue in the Scandinavian Re Arbitration, be influenced by recent credibility determinations they made as a result of [the common witness’] testimony in [the other arbitration], and influence each other’s thinking on issues relevant to the Scandinavian Re Arbitration.”  2010 WL 653481 at *8.  But a judge or arbitrator cannot have a “conflict of interest” unless he or she has an interest in a matter — whether imposed by law, or created by economic, social or professional circumstances or relationships — which is at odds with his or her legal or contractual obligations with respect to that matter.  Trustmark and Liteky foreclose any argument that an arbitrator’s discharge of legitimate adjudicative functions in matter A can create an “interest” in the outcome of related matter B, let alone a conflicting one.        

Likewise, the risk that that the arbitrators might “influence each other’s thinking on” allegedly similar common issues does not create a conflict of interest or otherwise establish evident partiality.  That risk is usually present to some degree on three-judge appellate panels, and is particularly high in the United States Supreme Court, where the same nine Justices generally hear each case.  But nobody thinks that Circuit Judges or Supreme Court Justices should recuse themselves in matter B because they served together in related matter A, and thus might, in matter B, influence the thinking of judges or justices who had not heard matter A.  

B.    But What About the Arbitrators’ Failure to Disclose their Contemporaneous Involvement in the Two Arbitrations? 

Some practitioners and business people may think that the Second Circuit should affirm the district court in Scandinavian Re because the arbitrators did not disclose their involvement in the other proceeding.  They may think that even though the arbitrators could have served as judges, their failure to disclose their overlapping service in the other proceeding evidenced some sinister motive that somehow spoiled the award.  Alternatively, some may concur with the district court’s conclusion that the arbitrators’ nondisclosure somehow “deprived Scandinavian Re of an opportunity to object to their service on both arbitration panels and/or adjust their arbitration strategy.”  See 2010 WL 653481, at *8. 

These arguments are misplaced for several reasons, but it is enough to say that accepting them would impose on arbitrators ethical standards far more onerous than those imposed on federal judges.  Where, as in Scandinavian Re, there is no basis on which the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” the judge is not required to disclose anything, and there is no basis for challenging impartiality.  See Sphere Drake, 307 F.3d at 622; see also Section III.A, above.  Obviously the Scandinavian Re arbitrators did not have to disclose anything that a similarly-situated federal judge would not have to disclose.      

Part III.B will explain why the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit should reverse in Dealer Computer Svcs., Inc. v. Michael Motor Co., No. H-10-2132, 2010 WL 5464266 (S.D. Tex. December 29, 2010).

[Editor's Note:  Karl Bayer's and Beth Graham's  Disputing blog has published as a guest post materially identical versions of Parts I-III.A of this post, which you can read here, here and here.]

Part I (here) briefly discussed Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook’s decision in Trustmark Ins. Co. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A.), No. 09-3682, slip op. (7^th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011), and its implications on the pending Second and Fifth Circuit appeals in  Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co, No. 09 Civ. 9531(SAS), 2010 WL 653481 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2010), and Dealer Computer Svcs., Inc. v. Michael Motor Co., No. H-10-2132, slip op. (S.D. Tex. December 29, 2010).  This Part II examines in some detail Trustmark’s background and rationale, and Part III will focus on Trustmark’s implications on the Scandinavian Re and Dealer Computer appeals.

II.  Trustmark Background

The following facts were gleaned from both the district court and Seventh Circuit opinions (the district court opinion is reported at 680 F. Supp. 2d 944 and can be found here):

Pursuant to several contracts, Trustmark Insurance Company (“Trustmark”)  agreed to reinsure John Hancock Insurance Company (U.S.A.) (“Hancock”), but not with respect to “London Market Retrocessional Excess of Loss Treaties,” which were excluded from the contracts.  Each contract was subject to a broad arbitration agreement (the “arbitration agreement”), which said the arbitrators had to be “disinterested in the outcome.”

A.  The First Arbitration and Confidentiality Agreement

A dispute arose concerning the scope of the “London Market Retrocessional Excess of Loss Treaties” exclusion, and the parties submitted the dispute to arbitration as required by the arbitration agreement.  Pursuant to the agreement, each party selected an arbitrator, and the two arbitrators selected a neutral umpire.

As is customary in reinsurance arbitration, the parties entered into a confidentiality agreement during the arbitration, which was executed by the parties and the panel members, and which prohibited Trustmark and Hancock from disclosing information concerning the proceedings and award, including evidence adduced.  The confidentiality agreement did not contain an arbitration clause.  (An example of a form of confidentiality agreement frequently used in reinsurance arbitration can be found here.   Parties frequently amend this form to suit the needs of the case, and, in any event, the Trustmark opinions do not say whether the confidentiality agreement was based on this particular form.)

In March 2004 the arbitration panel ruled in favor of Hancock, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, confirmed the award a few months later.  Hancock, relying on its interpretation of the award, billed Trustmark for balances allegedly owed under the treaties, but Trustmark refused to pay.

B.  The Second Arbitration

Hancock commenced a second arbitration in October 2004 to resolve the dispute that had arisen over the prior award and its reinsurance claims based on the award.  As one would expect, Hancock selected the same arbitrator it had appointed in the prior arbitration.  Trustmark, which had lost the prior arbitration, appointed a new arbitrator.  The two arbitrators appointed a neutral umpire, who, like Trustmark’s arbitrator, had not served in the first arbitration.

The parties knew from the outset that resolution of their dispute potentially implicated the confidentiality agreement, which Hancock’s arbitrator had signed, but which the umpire and Trustmark’s arbitrator had not.  At an organizational meeting in 2005 Trustmark expressed concern about whether Hancock’s arbitrator could abide by the confidentiality agreement.  Hancock’s arbitrator replied that although he “would scrupulously abide by confidentiality,” it might be “hard to segregate, difficult to deal with” knowledge obtained during first proceeding, which the other two panel members did not have.  Trustmark asked some further questions and consented to the appointment of Hancock’s arbitrator.

Not surprisingly, Hancock asserted that the panel should base its decision on the record of the prior arbitration.  It asked the panel to “expressly authorize the use of all materials [from the prior arbitration], without limitation.  .  .  .”  Hancock argued that the confidentiality agreement prohibited disclosures to the outside world, but not disclosures in subsequent arbitration proceedings between the parties, even proceedings involving attorneys and arbitrators who were not parties to the agreement.  Trustmark argued that the agreement covered all disclosures, including those made in subsequent proceedings to lawyers and arbitrators not involved in the original arbitration.

The umpire and Hancock’s arbitrator, over the dissent of Trustmark’s arbitrator, ruled that the panel “accept[ed] and extend[ed] the confidentiality of [the prior arbitration] to the two members of the current arbitration.  .  .  who were not parties to the previous arbitration.”

Hancock also requested that the Panel prohibit Trustmark from litigating nineteen issues that Hancock contended had been decided in the first arbitration.  A majority of the panel, over the dissent of Trustmark’s arbitrator, ruled that Trustmark was barred from relitigating several issues, including whether the retrocessional business on which Hancock’s claims arose was excluded from the treaties.  (“Retrocessional business” is the reinsurance of other reinsurance business.)

C.  Trustmark Seeks an Injunction

In 2009 Trustmark belatedly attempted to vacate the prior arbitration award, but presumably Trustmark recognized that the three-month deadline for vacating the award had expired long-ago, and that Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) did not authorize reopening the confirmation judgment.  It accordingly recast its claim as one for injunctive relief.

Trustmark argued that Hancock had obtained the prior award by fraudulently failing to produce four documents during discovery, and that the panel’s preclusion order was thus tainted by fraud.  Trustmark requested an order enjoining further arbitration to prevent Hancock from furthering its alleged “fraudulent scheme.”  Trustmark also sought an order enjoining:  (a) further alleged breaches of the confidentiality agreement; (b) Hancock’s alleged obstruction of access to relevant documents; and (c) further arbitration before any members of the panel.

In light of the four new documents Trustmark said should have been produced in the first arbitration, Hancock agreed to withdraw its preclusion claim and to participate in further discovery.  This mooted in part Trustmark’s claims for injunctive relief, leaving for judicial resolution its confidentiality-agreement-based claim and its claim that no further arbitration should proceed before any of the panel members.

As to the confidentiality agreement, Trustmark said the panel had no authority to resolve disputes concerning that agreement, including the dispute it had already purported to resolve, and therefore an injunction was necessary to ensure that the panel would not continue to exceed its authority by deciding confidentiality-agreement issues.  As to the constitution of the panel, Trustmark said Hancock’s arbitrator was no longer “disinterested” because he:  (a) allegedly breached the confidentiality agreement by participating in the deliberations that resulted in the confidentiality-agreement order; and (b) served as Hancock’s arbitrator in the prior arbitration.  According to Trustmark, Hancock’s arbitrator’s interest in the outcome “infect[ed]” the other two panel members, rendering them unfit to serve.

D.  The District Court Enjoins Arbitration

The district court enjoined the parties’ participation in the arbitration for as long as Hancock’s arbitrator remained on the panel.  The district court held that Hancock’s arbitrator was not “disinterested” within the meaning of the arbitration agreements, and that the panel had no authority to resolve confidentiality-agreement disputes.

As respects Hancock’s arbitrator, the district court said he was not “disinterested” in the arbitration’s outcome because he had breached the confidentiality agreement, and Trustmark may seek to hold him liable for that breach.  The district court also said the knowledge he obtained from the first arbitration made him “a fact witness not subject to examination.”  680 F. Supp. 2d at 948.  Acknowledging that courts “typically operate under the presumption that judges and arbitrators can disregard what they already know[,]” the district court concluded that Trustmark rebutted the presumption:

[Hancock’s arbitrator] has already demonstrated that he may well be unable to do this if he continues to serve on the second panel.   In Trustmark’s vetting of [Hancock’s arbitrator] as part of the Second Arbitration, [Hancock’s arbitrator] expressed some doubt that he would be able “to segregate” information he had from the First Arbitration, and stated that he would find it “difficult to deal with where the other panel members did not have the same full knowledge.” Trustmark points to one instance where, in a conference related to the Second Arbitration, Hancock made a point about a disputed issue in the First Arbitration, and [Hancock’s arbitrator], in support of Hancock, described his recollection of the First Arbitration. In response to Trustmark’s objection, [Hancock’s arbitrator] commented with regard to characterizations of certain claims made in the First Arbitration, “I feel it is my duty to correct the record as best as I understand in that regard.” The hypothetical posited by [Hancock’s arbitrator] during the organizational meeting became realized, and by his actions, he rebutted the presumption that he could disregard knowledge he already had.

680 F. Supp. 2d at 948-49.

The district court also held that the panel had no authority to resolve confidentiality-agreement disputes because that agreement did not contain an arbitration clause and because those disputes were not within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreements.  See 680 F. Supp. 2d at 949.

Hancock appealed and the Seventh Circuit reversed.

III.  Chief Judge Easterbrook’s Decision

The Seventh Circuit was reviewing an order granting injunctive relief, which must be supported by, among other things, irreparable injury on the part of the party seeking relief.   The Court said there were “two principal problems” with the district court’s analysis of irreparable injury, the “entire discussion” of which the Court said was contained in the following passage from the district court’s opinion:

‘Trustmark cannot be forced to arbitrate issues that it did not agree to arbitrate. Forcing a party to arbitrate a matter that the party never agreed to arbitrate, regardless of the final result through arbitration or judicial review, unalterably deprives the party of its right to select the forum in which it wishes to resolve disputes, causing irreparable harm. This is a harm faced uniquely by Trustmark if it is denied relief and such harm tips the scale in favor of granting injunction. This irreparable harm, coupled with Trustmark’s success on the merits, militates in favor of granting an injunction in this case.’

Slip op. at 4 (quoting 680 F. Supp. 2d at 949; other quotations and citations omitted).

First, said the Court, “Trustmark did agree to arbitrate the question whether the contracts provide reinsurance for certain risks[,]” but “the district court blocked, rather than enforced that contractual understanding.”  Slip op. at 5 (emphasis in original).  Second, a party seeking injunctive relief is not “’unalterably’” denied of its right to select the forum.  Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(4) expressly authorizes courts to vacate awards where arbitrators have “exceeded their powers,” so in cases where arbitrators purport to decide issues outside the scope of their authority, the problem can be addressed when the arbitrators issue a final award.  That, in turn, allows the litigation to proceed in the proper forum.  See slip op. at 5.

The Court said the only “injury” Trustmark might suffer (assuming it was correct that the confidentiality issue was not arbitrable) was “the delay and.  .  . out-of-pocket cost of paying the arbitrators and legal counsel.”  Slip op. at 5.  But the United States Supreme Court has “held that the delay and expense of adjudication are not ‘irreparable injury’.  .  .  . [,]” and the Seventh Circuit has held that Trustmark’s argument to the contrary is “frivolous.”  Slip op. at 5 (citing Petroleum Exploration, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 304 U.S. 209, 222 (1938); Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 24 (1974);  FTC v. Standard Oil Co., 449 U.S. 232, 244 (1980); PaineWebber Inc. v. Farnam, 843 F.2d 1050 (7th Cir. 1988); and Graphic Communications Union v. Chicago Tribune Co., 779 F.2d 13 (7th Cir. 1985)).

Having held that the district court improperly granted injunctive relief, the Court acknowledged it could dispose of the case without more.  But the Court explained that “the district court’s decision leaves a cloud over this arbitration and the reputation of [Hancock’s] arbitrator.  .  .  , a reputation that Trustmark seems determined to tarnish.”  Slip op. at 6.  The Court decided to remove the cloud, and ruled “that the district court erred on the merits in addition to mistakenly believing that Trustmark has established irreparable injury.”  Slip op. at 6.

Turning to whether Hancock’s arbitrator was “disinterested” within the meaning of the arbitrator qualification provisions of the agreements, the Court said “disinterested” means “lacking a financial or other personal stake in the outcome.”  Slip op. at 6 (citing by way of general example  Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009)).  Citing ARIAS•U.S., Practical Guide to Reinsurance Arbitration Procedure §2.3 (rev. ed. 2004), the Court said “[n]orms of insurance industry arbitration track this understanding.”  Slip op. at 6.

The Court concluded that Hancock’s arbitrator had no “stake in the outcome of this arbitration.”  Slip op. at 6.  The Court acknowledged that he has “a reputational interest:  if his decision disappoints the person who put him on the panel, he is less likely to be selected as an arbitrator in the future.”  Slip op. at 6.  But, according to the Court, such reputational interests are “endemic to arbitration that permits parties to choose who will decide.”  Slip op. at 6 (citing  Sphere Drake Ins. Co. v. All American Life Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 617, 622 (7th Cir. 2002) (Easterbrook, J.), reh’g denied, Nov. 4, 2002, cert. denied, 538 U.S. 961 (2004).  Noting that parties sometimes agree that arbitration-providers select the arbitrators, here “Trustmark and Hancock reserved the power of appointment.”  Slip op. at 6-7.  The Court concluded that “[a] court cannot properly deem the interest in reemployment created by this arrangement a disqualifying event.”  Slip op. at 7.

The Court rejected the district court’s conclusion that Hancock’s arbitrator was not “disinterested” because “he had knowledge of the dispute,” something the district court viewed as “a form of prohibited interest.”  Slip op. at 7.  The Court explained that “private parties often select arbitrators precisely because they know something about the controversy.”  Slip op. at 7 (citing Sphere Drake, 307 F.3d at 620):

Arbitration need not follow the pattern of jury trials, in which a factfinder’s ignorance is a prime desideratum. Nothing in the parties’ contract requires arbitrators to arrive with empty heads.

Slip op. at 7.

Gently rebuking the district court, the Court said “[f]ederal judges, of all people, should not confuse knowledge with disqualifying ‘interest[:]’”

For judges regularly hear multiple suits arising from the same controversy. The district judge who resolved this very dispute also entered the order enforcing the 2004 award. If knowing about what happened in 2004 is an impermissible “interest,” or makes the person a ‘fact witness’ about what had occurred in 2004, then the district judge should have stepped aside from the current suit.

Slip op. at 7.

But ethical rules applicable to federal judges did not require recusal, because “[k]nowledge acquired in a judicial capacity does not require disqualification.”  Slip op. at 7 (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994)).  And that, said the Court, is also true of “knowledge acquired in arbitration.”  Slip op. at 7.

The Court concluded that Hancock’s arbitrator was as “disinterested” as “the district judge himself, and just as entitled to participate.”  Slip op. at 8.  And, to the extent there was “any difference between the two adjudicators, [Hancock’s arbitrator] has the stronger entitlement to participate in the second round, because, as [the Court] stressed in Sphere Drake, it takes more to disqualify an arbitrator than to disqualify a judge.”  Slip op. at 8 (citing Sphere Drake, 307 F.3d at 621; and Merit Ins. Co. v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 714 F.2d 673 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1009 (1983) (Posner, J.):

No party in federal court is entitled to pick his judge, but contracts allowing parties to choose their arbitrators are common; these parties’ arrangement instantiates the practice. When one party is entitled to choose its own arbitrator, and in doing so follows all contractual requirements, a court ought not to abet the other side’s strategy to eject its opponent’s choice.

Slip op. at 8.

The Court also rejected the district court’s conclusion that Hancock’s arbitrator was not “disinterested” because he had allegedly breached the confidentiality agreement.  Hancock’s arbitrator had executed the agreement “as an adjudicator,” and was therefore similarly situated to the district court judge, who “himself implemented the confidentiality agreement, in a similar adjudicatory capacity, when confirming the first panel’s award.”  Slip op. at 8.

As to whether the panel had authority to interpret the confidentiality agreement, the Court invoked the procedural arbitrability doctrine.  While the Court acknowledged that the confidentiality agreement did not contain an arbitration agreement, it pointed out that “the parties did agree to arbitrate their disputes about reinsurance.”  Slip op. at 8.  Citing Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84 (2002), the Court said “[a]rbitrators who have been appointed to resolve a commercial dispute are entitled to resolve ancillary questions that affect their task.”  Slip op. at 8.  The confidentiality agreement, which was executed when the first arbitration was underway, “is closely related to the substance of the first arbitration and presumptively within the scope of the reinsurance contracts’ comprehensive arbitration clauses, which cover all disputes arising out of the original dispute.”  Slip op. at 8-9.   The arbitrators were therefore “entitled to decide for themselves those procedural questions that arise on the way to a final disposition,” including disputes concerning the confidentiality agreement, and “the preclusive effect (if any) of an arbitration award.”  Slip op. at 9-10.

The Court went out of its way to inform the arbitrators that, in addition to having the power to resolve the confidentiality agreement issue, they had a great deal of discretion to decide how to resolve those issues.  Acknowledging that the district court could review those determinations under Section 10(a)(4)’s “excess-of-powers” provision, the Court reminded the arbitrators and parties that the district court’s standard of review would be exceedingly deferential:

[a]mong the powers of an arbitrator is the power to interpret the written word, and this implies the power to err; an award need not be correct to be enforceable. See, e.g., Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504 (2001). It is enough if the arbitrators honestly try to carry out the governing agreements. “[T]he question for decision by a federal court asked to set aside an arbitration award . . . is not whether the arbitrator or arbitrators erred in interpreting the contract; it is not whether they clearly erred in interpreting the contract; it is not whether they grossly erred in interpreting the contract; it is whether they interpreted the contract.” Hill v. Norfolk & Western Ry., 814 F.2d 1192, 1194–95 (7th Cir. 1987) [(Posner, J.)]. See also, e.g., Operating Engineers Local 139 v. J.H. Findorff & Son, Inc., 393 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2004) [(Easterbrook, J.)].

Slip op. at 10.

And lest there be any lingering doubt, the Court – apparently speaking principally for the panel’s benefit – said “[w]hen this arbitration resumes, the panel is entitled to follow its own view about the meaning of the confidentiality agreement; it need not knuckle under to the district court’s prematurely announced understanding.”  Slip op. at 10.

Keep your eyes out for the upcoming discussion in Part III of Trustmark’s implications on Scandinavian Re and Dealer Computer.

[Editor’s Note:  We have published a materially identical version of this post on the Disputing blog (you can find Part I here and Part II here).]

The Chief Judge’s latest contribution to Federal Arbitration Act jurisprudence is Trustmark Ins. Co. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A.) , No. 09-3682, slip op. (7^th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011), and it is a welcome one.  In a characteristically terse and well-written ten-page opinion, the Chief Judge articulated at least eight Federal Arbitration Act rules pertinent to reinsurance and other forms of commercial and industry arbitration.  A few of these have been set forth before, while others are new:  

1. For the purposes of enjoining an  arbitration proceeding, a party does not suffer “irreparable harm”  simply because it must await the arbitration’s outcome  before obtaining judicial resolution of arbitrability or arbitrator-qualification  questions, see slip op. at 5-6; 
2. An arbitration agreement requiring arbitrators to be “disinterested” means the arbitrators must lack a “financial or other personal stake in [the arbitration’s] outcome,” see slip op. at 6;
3. An “arbitrator’s interest in reemployment created” by an arbitration clause that allows parties to choose their own arbitrators is not a “personal stake in the outcome” disqualifying an arbitrator, see slip op. at 6-7;
4. An arbitrator’s “knowledge about the dispute” is not a “disqualifying interest” in the arbitration’s outcome, see slip op. at 7-8;
5. Courts should not “abet [a party’s] .  .  .  strategy to eject the other party’s chosen arbitrator when that party is entitled to choose its own arbitrator, and in doing so follows all contractual requirements.  .  .  .,” see slip op. at 8;
6. Under the procedural-arbitrability doctrine, an arbitration panel in a subsequent arbitration has the authority to interpret and apply the terms of a confidentiality agreement reached during a prior arbitration proceeding, even if the confidentiality agreement does not contain an arbitration clause, see slip op. at 8-10;
7. Arbitrators have the authority to determine “the preclusive effect (if any) of an earlier [arbitration award,” see slip op. at 9-10; and
8. The question whether arbitrators exceeded their powers based on the outcome of an award is not whether they interpreted the contract correctly, but whether they interpreted it at all.  See slip op. at 10.  

Senior Circuit Judge Richard D. Cudahy and Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner joined in the Chief Judge’s opinion. 

Trustmark’s implications are many, particularly on the often interrelated topics of arbitrator qualifications and evident-partiality standards.  The author believes the Chief Judge’s opinion should influence the outcome of  pending appeals of two district court decisions vacating awards on the ground one or more arbitrators allegedly did not disclose (or fully disclose) service on a prior arbitration panel involving similar issues and contracts, or the same witness.   One of these is the appeal of the controversial decision in Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co, No. 09 Civ. 9531(SAS), 2010 WL 653481 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2010), which is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and which was fully briefed and argued before Trustmark was decided.  The other is the recently-filed appeal of Dealer Computer Svcs., Inc. v. Michael Motor Co., No. H-10-2132, slip op. (S.D. Tex. December 29, 2010), which is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 

Trustmark strongly suggests that the Second and Fifth Circuits should reverse the district court decisions in both Scandinavian Re and Dealer Computer.   In each of those cases the district court vacated an award because one or more arbitrators, through their service in other cases, had access to information or ruled on issues that were allegedly relevant to the proceedings that led to the challenged award. 

Trustmark undermines the district courts’ reasoning in Scandinavian Re and Dealer Computer because it demonstrates that even had the arbitrators in those cases been federal judges -- and therefore subject to more onerous neutrality requirements than those applicable to arbitrators --  the knowledge and experience they obtained from hearing cases involving the same or similar issues or a common witness would not have rendered them “interested” in the outcome, partial to one of the parties, or otherwise unfit to serve.   And if they could have served as federal judges in those matters, then the district courts unquestionably erred by holding that they lacked the requisite neutrality to serve as arbitrators. 

Scandinavian Re and Dealer Computer involved alleged non- or incomplete disclosure of arbitrator service on arguably similar or related matters, while Trustmark did not.    But the disclosure issue is a red herring.  Trustmark, construed in conjunction with Sphere Drake Insurance Ltd. v. All American Life Insurance Co., 307 F.3d 617, 622 (7th Cir. 2002) (Easterbrook, J.) – a case which the Chief Judge relied heavily on in Trustmark – demonstrates that the arbitrators in Scandinavian Re and Dealer Computer  were not required to disclose their service in other arbitrations allegedly involving similar issues or a common witness. 

To fully understand the implications of Trustmark on other cases, one must first understand the background of, and rationale for, the decision. Part II of this post will therefore discuss in some detail what transpired in Trustmark, and Part III will explain in more detail why, in light of Trustmark, the Second and Fifth Circuits should reverse the district court judgments in Scandinavian Re and Dealer Computer.     

[Editor’s Note:  The author is also publishing a materially identical version of this post in the Disputing blog.] 

Each involved a dispute about the existence of an arbitration agreement.  In UBS Securities United States District Judge Denise L. Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a declaratory judgment that certain Swiss investors could not compel UBS to arbitrate their securities fraud claims, and permanently enjoined the Swiss investors from pursuing their claims in arbitration.  Affirming the district court, the Second Circuit held that UBS satisfied the three requisites of permanent injunctive relief:  1) success on the merits; 2) lack of an adequate remedy at law; and 3) irreparable harm.

As respects success on the merits, the Court held that UBS was not obligated to arbitrate with the Swiss investors, and therefore had succeeded on the merits.  Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Code Rule 12200 provides that members can be compelled to arbitrate only 1) pursuant to a written agreement; or 2) where a customer requests arbitration.  FINRA R. 12200.  There was no written agreement to arbitrate between UBS and any of the Swiss investors and the Swiss investors were not customers of UBS.  See UBS Securities, slip op. at 3. 

As respects the lack of an adequate remedy at law and irreparable harm, the Court explained that under  Merrill Lynch Inv. v. Optibase, Ltd., 337 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2003), “[b]eing forced to arbitrate a claim one did not agree to arbitrate constitutes an irreparable harm for which there is no remedy at law.”  Slip op. at 3.  Because UBS was not legally obligated to arbitrate, and because “the lack of an injunction would result in UBS effectively being required to do so, UBS satisfie[d] the ‘irreparable harm’ and ‘lack of an adequate remedy at law’ requirements for an injunction.”  Slip op. at 3.

Dedon concerned the familiar rule that disputes about the existence of a contract containing an arbitration agreement must be decided by the court (absent a clear and unmistakable post-dispute submission of that issue to arbitration).  Janus sought to compel arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) of an exclusive-distribution-agreement dispute, contending 1) the parties had agreed to arbitrate “as evidenced by a draft exclusive distribution agreement or the standard terms and conditions that accompanied each purchase;” and 2) Dedon had “waived its right to arbitrate through its conduct before the ICC” in London.  Slip op. at 2.  United States District Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion to compel and declined to stay the proceedings pending an ICC determination of the contract formation issue, holding that the dispute concerned the existence of an arbitration agreement and that Dedon had not unreservedly submitted the contract formation issue to ICC arbitration. 

The Second Circuit affirmed.  It said the United States Supreme Court in Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2847, 2857-58 (2010), had “reconfirm[ed]” the Second Circuit’s “well-established precedent that where a party challenges the very existence of a contract containing an arbitration clause, a court cannot compel arbitration without first resolving the issue of the contract’s existence.”  Slip op. at 3 (citing Interocean Shipping Co. v. National Shipping & Trading Corp., 462 F.2d 673, 676 (2d Cir. 1972); Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 263 F.3d 26, 30 (2d Cir. 2001); Denny v. BDO Seidman LLP, 412 F.3d 58, 68 (2d Cir. 2005); Opals on Ice Lingerie v. Body Lines Inc., 320 F.3d 362, 369 (2d Cir. 2003); Sprecht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 26 (2d Cir. 2002)).  Because Janus sought to compel arbitration based on a draft agreement containing an arbitration clause, the district court had to decide whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate. 

The Court held that Dedon had not waived its right to court determination of the contract formation issue.  The Court said that “Dedon’s submissions to the ICC were replete with statements that Dedon disputed the ICC’s jurisdiction; such repeated objections to ICC jurisdiction prevent a finding of waiver.  .  .  .”  Slip op. at 5 (citing First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 946 (1995); Opals on Ice, 320 F.3d at 368).   

The Court also rejected Janus’ argument that an agreement to arbitrate “may be found in the terms and conditions that accompanied each purchase order between Dedon and Janus.”  Slip op. at 5:

On their face, the terms and conditions in those purchase orders govern the particular exchange of goods occurring with that purchase order — “[a]ll contractual and extra-contractual disputes arising out of or in connection with contracts to which these International Terms and Conditions apply, shall be finally resolved by arbitration” (emphasis added) — and do not purport to create or refer to any exclusive distribution relationship between the parties, which is the sole focus of the present suit. 

Janus also argues that the exclusive distribution agreement should be encompassed within the meaning of ‘pre-contractual and collateral obligations’ to the purchase orders.  Janus would thus have this court find that “any dispute related to any obligation arising prior to or outside of the contract formed by each shipment of goods” is governed by the purchase orders’ terms and conditions.  (emphasis in original)  We decline to adopt Janus’s broad reading of that contractual language, as it ignores the plain language of the purchase order, and we agree with the district court that the terms and conditions do not provide an alternative basis for compelling arbitration.

Slip op. at 5-6 (emphasis in original).

Dedon — the party who prevailed in the district court — argued that the district court should have denied the motion to compel with prejudice.  Dedon relied on Kahn Lucas Lancaster, Inc. v. Lark Int’l Ltd., 186 F.3d 210, 218 (2d Cir. 1999), partially abrogated on other grounds by Sarhank Group v. Oracle Corp., 404 F.3d 657, 660 n.2 (2d Cir. 2005), which held that under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, arbitration agreements, to be enforceable, “must be signed by the parties or contained within an exchange of letters or telegrams.”   186 F.3d at 218) (quoting Article II of the Convention).  But Dedon did not raise that argument before the district court, and so the Court said “the parties will have the opportunity to argue this issue at the trial on the existence of a contact.”  Slip op. at 6-7.  The Court also noted that the district court may “consider what effect, if any, [the Court's] holding in Kahn Lucas has on any renewed motion to compel.”  Slip op. at 7.

[EDITOR'S NOTE:  (Summary orders "filed on or after January 1, 2007 may be cited in a document filed" with the Second Circuit, subject to Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 32.1.1.  See Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1.1(b)(1) ; Fed. R. App. P. 32.1.  "[A] party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation ‘summary order)[,]” and “must serve a copy of it on every party not represented by counsel.”    Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1.1(c) & (d).]

Introduction

Part I of this two-part post (here) briefly discussed the background of  AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893, a case pending before the United States Supreme Court that will be argued on November 9, 2010.  We now delve into the details of the preemption questions before the Court and take a guess at the outcome. 

Federal Arbitration Act Preemption

The Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt all state law applicable to arbitration agreements, but it expressly preempts state law that conflicts with Section 2, and impliedly preempts all state law that “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes of Congress”  embodied in the Federal Arbitration Act.  See Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Serv., Inc., 498 F.3d 976, 988 (9^th Cir. 2007) (citations and quotation omitted). 

Does Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act Expressly Preempt the Discover Bank Rule?

Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act declares that arbitration agreements within its scope “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”  9 U.S.C. § 2.  Section 2 establishes substantive federal law that expressly preempts all conflicting state law, except for state law that permits “the revocation of any contract” or governs the formation, interpretation, or construction of contracts generally. 

The exception to federal preemption is exceedingly narrow, for it saves from preemption only state laws that apply equally across the board to all contracts.  The United States Supreme Court summarized it well when it said:

States may regulate contracts, including arbitration clauses, under general contract law principles and they may invalidate an arbitration clause ‘upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.  What States may not do is decide that a contract is fair enough to enforce all its basic terms (price, service, credit), but not fair enough to enforce its arbitration clause.  The Act makes any such state policy unlawful, for that kind of policy would place arbitration clauses on an unequal footing, directly contrary to the Act’s language and Congress’s intent.

Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 281 (1995) (citations and quotations omitted; emphasis in original).  

By preempting state laws that do not apply to all other contracts, it makes arbitration agreements as enforceable of all other contracts, and prevents states from discriminating against them or otherwise making them less enforceable than all other contracts.  

The Supreme Court has said that state law grounds for the revocation of “any contract” include “generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability,”  and that these defenses “may be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening § 2.”  Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687 (1996).  The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court say that the Discover Bank rule is a state law ground for the invalidation of any contract (or at least for invalidating a class action waiver made part of the contract) for two reasons. 

First, the Discover Bank rule is part of California’s unconscionability law, and unconscionability is a defense to the enforcement of “any contract.”  California permits any contract to be voided on unconscionability grounds if, at the time it was made, it was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.  Procedural unconscionability can be established by showing that a party with superior bargaining power offered the agreement on a take-it-or-leave it basis or the bargaining process was otherwise unfair.  Substantive unconscionability is established if the agreement “shock[s] the conscience,” or is one that a person would have to be “under delusion” to enter.  Odell v. Moss, 130 Cal. 352, 358 (1900); Belton v. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, 151 Cal.App.4^th 1224, 1245 (1st Dist. 2007); California Grocers Ass’n v. Bank of Am., 22 Cal.App. 4^th 205, 215 (1st Dist. 1994).   California applies a “sliding scale” rule – if the degree of procedural unconscionability is relatively low, then a greater showing of substantive unconscionability is required, and vice-versa. 

The Discover Bank rule says that, as a matter of law, an agreement to waive class arbitration or litigation is procedurally unconscionable if it is contained in a contract of adhesion and is substantively unconscionable if it is:  (a) “in a setting in which disputes between the contracting parties predictably involve small amounts of damages;” and (b) “it is alleged that the party with superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money.”  Discover Bank v. Superior Ct., 36 Cal.4^th 148, 162-63 (2005). 

Second, the Discover Bank rule is an application of Cal. Civ. Code § 1668, which declares certain exculpatory contracts to be “against the policy of the law:”

All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law. 

Cal. Civ. Code § 1668. 

A key premise of the Discover Bank rule is that class waivers are exculpatory contract provisions because consumers that have been the victims of alleged small-dollar but widespread fraud will, for economic reasons, allegedly be deterred from pursuing their small-dollar claims in individual, bilateral arbitrations or litigations.  According to California law an agreement that deprives consumers of class procedures exculpates the corporate wrongdoer from full responsibility for its fraud, or at least is intended to do so.  

Because California law bars enforcement of all unconscionable contracts, and all exculpatory contracts falling within Section 1668 of its Civil Code, and because the Discover Bank rule applies to class action waivers in contracts that do not contain arbitration agreements, the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit hold that it does not discriminate against arbitration agreements in violation of Section 2. 

While this conclusion admittedly has a superficial ring of reason to it, it cannot withstand scrutiny.  The Discover Bank  rule may be based on or derived from general unconscionability-law principles and Cal. Civ. Code Section 1668, but it is not a general rule that applies to all contracts. 

To be sure, the rule targets not only certain arbitration agreements, but also a very small class of other contracts that do not contain arbitration agreements, but which purport to require a party to waive the right to bring a class action in court.  That alone, however, cannot save the rule from preemption, for the rule is no less discriminatory of arbitration agreements simply because it also happens to apply to another small subset of – but not all other – contracts.   Far from a general ground for the revocation of “any contract,” it is a special rule that applies principally to arbitration agreements.   Section 2 expressly preempts all state laws that discriminate against arbitration agreements, and the Discover Bank rule does exactly that.

That doesn’t mean California law on unconscionability or exculpatory contracts can’t be invoked to void an arbitration agreement in whole or in part.  But it does mean that California must apply to arbitration agreements the same standards for assessing unconscionability or Section 1668 enforceability that it applies to all other contracts. 

California could therefore apply its general rule against unconscionable contracts to an arbitration agreement.  That rule allows courts to void only those adhesive contracts that “shock the conscience” or would be accepted only by the delusional.  The ultra-consumer-friendly arbitration agreement in AT&T could never meet this rigorous test, the Ninth Circuit never suggested that it could, and, to our knowledge, the Concepcions do not contend that it could.   

California could also probably apply its general rule against exculpatory contracts to an arbitration agreement without violating Section 2.  One might legitimately argue that an arbitration agreement would violate Section 1668’s general rule if, for example, the agreement required arbitration of fraud claims, but forbade the arbitrators from awarding full monetary relief for fraud.     But nothing in the AT&T Mobility arbitration agreement purports to impair the Concepcions’ rights – or those of any other party that has the same or a similar agreement with AT&T Mobility – to obtain in bilateral arbitration the same monetary relief from fraud that it might obtain in class arbitration or litigation.       

There is yet another reason why California’s Discover Bank rule is not a rule of general contract law:  it is not a rule that is intended to  govern the validity or enforceability of any particular contract viewed in isolation, but a dispute resolution or consumer protection policy that seeks to guarantee class procedures are available to consumers in circumstances where many consumer parties have entered into independent, substantially similar adhesive contracts with a common corporate party and one or more consumers allege small dollar but widespread fraud.  Even assuming there is an empirical basis for the Discover Bank rule, and that it otherwise reflects a reasonable exercise of judicial power to declare public policy, the policy it is designed to advance has nothing to do with the enforceability of contracts generally, everything to do with the enforceability of consumer dispute resolution contracts particularly, and most to do with regulating consumer arbitration agreements specifically.       

 Does the Federal Arbitration Act Impliedly Preempt the Discover Bank Rule?

Even if state law is not expressly preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, it may be impliedly preempted if it conflicts with the purpose of the Act, or the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration that it seeks to advance.  State laws or policies that undermine “the goals and policies of the FAA” are preempted by the Act.  Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 477-78 (1990).  

The Ninth Circuit held that the Discover Bank rule did not conflict with policies and purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act for essentially the same reasons it held that Section 2 did not expressly preempt the rule.  Those reasons do not save the rule from implied preemption anymore than they save it from express preemption, but there is more. 

The Ninth Circuit decided AT&T Mobility before the Supreme Court decided Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds, Inc., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010), which spelled out in no uncertain terms what Federal-Arbitration-Act policy was as respects class arbitration.   In Stolt-Nielsen the Court reaffirmed that “the central or ‘primary’ purpose of the FAA is to ensure that ‘private agreements to arbitrate are enforced according to their terms” and according to “the contractual rights and expectations of the parties.”  130 S. Ct. at 1773 (citations and quotations omitted).  To that end, said the Court, the Act “imposes certain rules of fundamental importance, including the basic precept that ‘arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion.’”  130 S. Ct. at 1773 (citations omitted).  These rules authorize the parties to:  

1. generally “structure their arbitration agreements as they see fit[;]” 
2. “agree to limit the issues they choose to arbitrate[;]”
3. “agree on the rules under which any arbitration will proceed[;]”
4. “choose who will resolve specific disputes[;]” and
5.  “specify with whom they choose to arbitrate.”

130 S. Ct. at 1773-74 (citations and quotations omitted; emphasis  in original).

The Court admonished “courts and arbitrators to give effect to these contractual limitations” and reminded them not to “lose sight of the purpose of the exercise:  to give effect to the intent of the parties.”  130 S. Ct. at 1774-75 (citations omitted). 

From these Federal Arbitration Act “fundamental rules of importance” Stolt-Nielsen derived a new rule that effectively puts the kibosh on judicial attempts to nullify class waivers:  “a party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so.”  130 S. Ct. at 1775 (emphasis in original).  The Discover Bank rule squarely conflicts with this and other Federal Arbitration Act “rules of fundamental importance,” because it either (a) imposes class arbitration on parties that not only did not agree to it, but expressly forbade it; or (b) requires parties to submit their dispute to class-action litigation, all in derogation of their arbitration agreement. 

Stolt-Nielsen has set Discover Bank on a collision course not only with the Federal Arbitration Act, but with itself.  Discover Bank assumes that, if consistent with state law on severability a class waiver can be severed from an arbitration agreement that is otherwise silent on class relief, then an arbitrator could impose class arbitration.  That’s part of the justification for Discover Bank; it is allegedly not an anti-arbitration rule because it permits class arbitration. 

Stolt-Nielsen has negated this key premise of Discover Bank by rejecting the argument that class arbitration is a mere matter of arbitral procedure and holding that courts or arbitrators cannot impose class arbitration without the parties’ affirmative consent.  It teaches us that if the parties’ agreement is silent on class relief, then the parties have not agreed to class arbitration, and thus cannot be compelled to participate in it, even if state law would deem the parties to have consented to class arbitration.    

If the Supreme Court were to hold that the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt Discover Bank, then it would transform Discover Bank into a rule that not only barred class waivers, but also a certain class of ordinary arbitration agreements that are simply silent on class procedures, something that the Discover Bank rule does not purport to do.  And the result could not be squared with the Federal Arbitration Act. 

Stolt-Nielsen renders class waivers irrelevant in most cases.   If the waiver can be severed consistent with state law on severability applicable to any contract, then what is left is usually an arbitration agreement that is silent on class arbitration.  But under the Federal Arbitration Act, such an arbitration agreement provides no basis for a court or arbitrator to compel class arbitration, and a court faced with such an agreement has no choice but to compel bilateral arbitration.

That demonstrates that the Federal Arbitration Act impliedly preempts the Discover Bank rule, because it does not allow the rule to accomplish its intended result, which was to require class arbitration in cases where the parties expressly provide for bilateral arbitration only.  In the recent, post-Stolt-Nielsen, Fensterstock v. Education Finance Partners, ___ F.3d ___ (2d Cir. July 12, 2010), case (blogged here), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit attempted to avoid this foregone conclusion by completely ignoring the Federal Arbitration Act “rules of fundamental importance,” and holding that, under Discover Bank, the entire arbitration agreement was void because merely severing the class waiver would not permit class arbitration.  In attempting to implement the purposes of the Discover Bank rule it was forced to effectively expand the scope of the rule into one that voids not only class arbitration waivers, but also arbitration agreements that do not affirmatively authorize class relief.     

Ironically, the conclusion the Second Circuit reached in Fensterstock negates the key premise on which it was based.  The reason the Second Circuit saw fit to apply the Discover Bank rule in the first place was that it was purportedly a state law rule that applied to all contracts generally because it applied equally to arbitration agreements and contracts that waived class litigation.  But the expanded Discover Bank rule cannot survive express preemption even on that questionable basis. 

The expanded Discover Bank rule discriminates against adhesive arbitration agreements that are silent on class arbitration by voiding them, but enforcing all other contracts that are silent on class litigation.  The Discover Bank rule does not condition enforcement of non-arbitration agreements on the parties agreeing to submit to class action litigation proceedings.  Class litigation is provided for by applicable state procedural law or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; nobody has to consent to it.   But the Discover Bank rule as applied by the Second Circuit conditions enforcement of adhesive arbitration agreements on the parties affirmatively consenting to class arbitration in cases where the consumer alleges small-dollar but widespread fraud. 

That inescapable conclusion causes the Second Circuit’s express and implied preemption analysis to collapse like a house of cards.  The Second Circuit’s expanded Discover Bank rule treats arbitration agreements that are silent on class arbitration differently than all other contracts that are silent on class litigation, and there is no basis – however thin – for contending otherwise. 

It also bulldozes the Ninth Circuit’s express and implied preemption analysis in AT&T Mobility.  For Stolt-Nielsen renders irrelevant the Discover Bank rule unless it is construed to apply in a way that puts arbitration agreements on a wholly different footing than all other contracts. 

What is the Likely Outcome in AT&T Mobility?

Predicting the outcomes of cases pending before the Supreme Court is, at best, educated guesswork.  But we do not think that the Supreme Court can affirm the Ninth Circuit unless it is prepared to make significant exceptions to its prior jurisprudence interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act, or fashion a whole new set of rules and policies that apply to adhesive arbitration agreements.   

It seems highly unlikely that a majority of the Court will be willing to take such a bold step, particularly in light of the recently decided Stolt-Nielsen case.  Congress could, of course, do so, and under the Dodd-Frank Act (blogged here), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and the Securities and Exchange Commission may have the power to do so as respects arbitration agreements contained in the financial service, broker-dealer, and investment-advisory contracts that the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes them to regulate. 

Our best guess is that the Court will stay the course it has set over the last few decades in the many Federal Arbitration Act cases it has decided, and let Congress change the law if it sees fit. 

Stay tuned for further coverage of the perplexing and exceedingly important AT&T Mobility case.  .  .  .

U.S. Law Week is a subscription only publication, but I received permission from the Bureau of National Affairs (“BNA”) to post a copy of the article on my LinkedIn profile.  So, if you are a member of Linkedin, you can access a copy of the article here (it does not appear in my “public” LinkedIn profile).

We would like to take this opportunity to thank Tom P. Taylor for conducting a very professional interview and following up with a very professional article.  We would also like to thank Bernard J. Pazanowski, who co-authored the article with Tom.

We will find out whether the Court intends to continue down the same path when it decides AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion next term, a case that raises the question whether California’s Discover Bank  unconscionability rule is pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act.  That rule deems unconscionable under California law class-action or class-arbitration waivers where:  (a) “the waiver is found in a consumer contract of adhesion in a setting in which the disputes between the contracting parties predictably involve small amounts of damages”; and (b) “it is alleged that the party with the superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money.  .  .  .”  Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 (2005) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1668). 

The Discover Bank rule is grounded in a California-law principle – embodied in Cal. Civ. Code § 1668 – that “contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud.  .  .  are against the policy of the law.”   See Cal. Civ. Code § 1668.  If a company is allegedly engaging in fraudulent acts designed to cheat numerous consumers out of small amounts of money, a class action or class arbitration waiver may, if enforced, effectively act as an exculpatory provision that insulates the company from the consequences of its small scale, but widespread fraud, because the individual, allegedly defrauded consumers have little incentive to pursue separate actions or arbitrations to recoup trivial amounts of damages.  See Discover Bank, 36 Cal. 4th at 162-63.  Any contract that had that effect – whether it is a class action waiver in an arbitration clause, an exculpatory agreement or a contract that simply forbids class actions  – would be unconscionable under the rule.  

In Fensterstock v. Education Finance Partners, No. 09-1562-cv, slip op. (2d Cir. July 12, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit suggested one path that the United States Supreme Court might take on Discover Bank preemption.  In an interesting opinion, Senior Circuit Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse, joined by Circuit Judges José A. Cabranes and Chester J. Straub, held that the Discover Bank rule was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.  According to the Second Circuit, California’s  Discover Bank rule “’places arbitration agreements on the exact same footing as contracts that bar class action litigation outside the context of arbitration,’” and for that reason the rule is not preempted by the Act.  Slip op. at 16-17 (quoting Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Serv., Inc., 498 F.3d 976, 990 (9^th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original)). 

On first blush the Second Circuit’s decision seems reasonable.  But there are some important issues lurking beneath the surface that the Supreme Court will need to address when it decides AT&T Mobility. 

In Stolt-Nielsen the Supreme Court, among other things, established certain Federal Arbitration Act “rules of fundamental importance,” which trump inconsistent state law.  (Blogged here.)   One of these is that parties may “specify with whom they chose to arbitrate.”  Stolt-Nielsen, slip op. at 19 (emphasis in original).   And another – the one that controlled the outcome of Stolt-Nielsen – is that  “a party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so.”  Slip op. at 20 (emphasis in original).  The Court admonished that it “falls to courts and arbitrators to give effect to these [and other enumerated] contractual limitations, and when doing so, courts and arbitrators must not lose sight of the purpose of the exercise:  to give effect to the intent of the parties.”  Slip op. at 20. 

Application of these rules to an arbitration agreement containing a class-arbitration or class-action waiver would presumably result in enforcement of that waiver as a matter of federal law.  The rule that the parties can choose with whom they arbitrate necessarily preempts any state law or policy that would declare void or unenforceable such an express choice made by the parties to limit the universe of persons with whom they agreed to arbitrate.  And the Discover Bank  rule – for all its reasonableness and good intentions – is just such a rule.

Alternatively, the Stolt-Nielsen rule that affirmative consent — not mere silence – is required for a court or arbitration panel to compel class arbitration strongly suggests that class-arbitration or class-action waivers are irrelevant.  Even if one is excised from the arbitration clause, what is left is usually an arbitration clause that is silent on class arbitration.  But under Stolt-Nielsen courts and arbitrators cannot compel class arbitration in the face of silence.   So the net effect of including such a waiver in a contract that is otherwise silent on class arbitration is zero, which hardly makes the waiver a candidate for nonenforcement under the Discover Bank rule.  

The Supreme Court’s disposition of the American Express Merchants’ Litigation matter suggests that it believes Stolt-Nielsen is relevant to the question whether class arbitration waivers are enforceable or simply irrelevant.  Readers may recall that in May 2009 American Express filed a cert petition in the American Express Merchants’ Litigation.  The Second Circuit had held that an arbitration agreement provision forbidding class-action arbitration was invalid and unenforceable on federal public policy grounds under the circumstances of that case, which involved federal antitrust claims.  See Re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, 554 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2009), vacated and remanded sub nom., American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 08-1473 (May 3, 2010). 

On May 3, 2010 the Court issued a summary order in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, granting certiorari, summarily vacating the Second Circuit judgment, and remanding it “for further consideration in light of” Stolt-Nielsen.   Justice Sotomayor “took no part in the consideration or decision” of the petition.   See Italian Colors, No. 08-1473 (May 3, 2010) (summary disposition).  It is unclear whether the Court vacated the judgment because it believed the waiver was enforceable or irrelevant, or whether there was some other Stolt-Nielsen-related reason.  

In Fensterstock the Second Circuit apparently did not figure Stolt-Nielsen or Italian Colors into its preemption analysis.  Oddly enough it relied on Stolt-Nielsen for the proposition that the class-arbitration waiver could not be severed from the remainder of the arbitration agreement, because if the class arbitration waiver were removed, the arbitration clause would be silent on class arbitration, which in turn meant that the court could not compel class arbitration.  While that conclusion probably should have led the court to rethink its preemption analysis, instead it led the court to conclude further (and implausibly) that the entire arbitration clause could not be enforced, and that the claimant could pursue a class action in court.  But that reasoning makes little sense because it suggests that an arbitration clause that contains no class-arbitration waiver, and  is simply silent on class arbitration,  would violate the Discover Bank rule.        

The question that will likely arise in AT&T Mobility is whether Stolt-Nielsen’s “rules of fundamental importance” require enforcement of the waiver despite contrary state law governing contracts generally.  If the Court decides to follow the same path it was on this past term, then it might well find that the Stolt-Nielsen rules of “fundamental importance” trump the Discover Bank rule, or render irrelevant both the class waiver and the Discover Bank rule.  But if at least one member of the Stolt-Nielsen/Rent-A-Center majority decides to break ranks, then it could be that the Court adopts an analysis similar to that used in Fensterstock. 

The narrow nature of the Discover Bank rule, coupled with strong public policy considerations against allowing parties to effectively insulate themselves from liability for fraud, could cause such a break in the ranks.  If that turns out to be the case, perhaps the Court will say that the “rules of fundamental importance” are subject to state law defenses applicable to ordinary contracts, and that the Discover Bank  rule constitutes such a defense.  Or the Court might say that the “rules of fundamental importance” are different – or are to be applied differently – in cases involving adhesive contracts.   

Whatever position a majority of the Court may take, the stakes are fairly high.  There has already been a good deal of political fallout resulting from the Court’s arbitration decisions this term, and the practical implications of that fall-out are not entirely clear in terms of whether the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 is likely to be passed.  But even if Rent-A-Center does not precipitate legislative action on the Arbitration Fairness Act, a reversal in AT&T Mobility could well be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.  On the other hand, an affirmance in AT&T Mobility — coupled with an adjustment of the “rules of fundamental importance” in the adhesive contract context — might well shift public attention from anti-arbitration legislation on to something more – for lack of a better phrase — fundamentally important.

A.     Introduction 

Shortly before the United States Supreme Court decided Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., ___ U.S. ___, slip op. (April 27, 2010), we wrote about the implications the case might have on reinsurance arbitration practice.  (See our post here.)  But since then, you have not heard much from us, other than our brief report (here) about the Supreme Court vacating and remanding to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the American Express Merchants’ Litigation judgment for further consideration in light of Stolt-Nielsen.   One — but by no means the only — reason is that after Stolt-Nielsen was decided, we wrote a comprehensive article on it, which will be published in a subscription-only publication in June. 

But that article – while comprehensive in scope – is directed at folks interested in the Federal Arbitration Act in general, not necessarily those interested in reinsurance arbitration in particular.  And that’s what we want to cover in this multi-part series:  Stolt-Nielsen’s implications on reinsurance arbitration practice. 

Stolt-Nielsen affects reinsurance arbitration in two very important ways.   First, it has set a fairly liberal standard of review that now applies to commercial arbitration awards in cases where a party asserts that the arbitrators exceeded their powers under Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(4) because of the award’s outcome.  That, as we shall see, has all sorts of implications for persons involved in reinsurance arbitrations.

Second, it has changed the rules applicable to consolidated-reinsurance-arbitration practice – or at least it requires a wholesale reevaluation of those rules.  That, too, has a number of important implications for reinsurance-arbitration practice.   

This Part I of the series explains why the standard for challenging an award based on its outcome is important in reinsurance arbitration practice.  And, after briefly reviewing pre-Stolt-Nielsen law on outcome-based standards of review, it explains how Stolt-Nielsen has established for the lower courts a fairly searching standard of review.  Part II (here) will delve into what the implications of that standard of review will likely be. 

Part III (here) will provide the background necessary to understand how Stolt-Nielsen affects the law applicable to consolidated reinsurance arbitration.  Part IV (here) will delve into the details of how Stolt-Nielsen changes – or at least requires reconsideration of – the legal status quo in this area.  And Part V will discuss the implications of all of this.   

We do not set out to discuss the background of Stolt-Nielsen in any detail or to provide a play-by-play of how the Court decided the case.  If you are a regular reader you probably already know the background in detail, and our upcoming article does a pretty good job of mapping out the Court’s reasoning.  Instead, we focus our attention on the aspects of the decision that are relevant to the two key subjects of discussion. 

But before we delve into what Stolt-Nielsen has to say about the standard of review, we pause briefly to address why the standard of review applicable to an outcome-based challenge is so important in reinsurance and other forms of commercial arbitration. 

B.     Why is the Outcome-Based Standard of Review under Section 10(a)(4) Important to Reinsurance Arbitration Practice? 

Those involved in, or who have responsibility for, reinsurance arbitrations have good reason to be concerned about the extent to which a Court can vacate an award based on its outcome.  For the standard of review is not merely legal “mumbo jumbo,” but delineates the degree of discretion that a judge has to vacate an arbitration award.  That degree of discretion effectively acts as a check on arbitral power and determines how final a final arbitration award really is. 

Reinsurance arbitrators should be (and usually are) interested in the standard of review because it bears on how much discretion they have to decide a case in a particular manner.  Since arbitrators have institutional, reputational and economic interests in ensuring that their awards will be confirmed, they need to know how much discretion a judge has to second-guess their decisions. 

Parties likewise have good reason to be concerned about the standard of review.  The end product of arbitration will (or, at least, should) determine their rights and obligations, making one or both parties winners or losers.  Winners want that determination to be final; losers do not – and the scope of the standard of review determines (however loosely) the odds that the loser might get another bite at the proverbial apple. 

Parties also have institutional interests in the standard of review because it factors into the risk-benefit calculus that informs their decision whether to arbitrate in the first place.  The less discretion a judge has to vacate an award, the greater the risk that a party who agrees to arbitrate might be saddled with an arbitration award that bears little or no resemblance to what one would expect given the clear and unambiguous language of the contract and applicable law, custom and practice.  The more discretion a judge has to overturn an award, the more likely it is that arbitration will be followed by litigation, thereby increasing costs. 

The risk of high expense is inversely proportional to the risk of a wacky but unreviewable outcome.  If reinsurers and cedents are going to make informed choices about arbitration, they need to know where along the continuum of standard-of-review choices the law has attempted to strike the balance between these risks.

Attorney interests are aligned with those of their clients.  But to advance their client’s interests attorneys need to know the contours of the standard of review so that they can tailor strategy to maximize the chances that the client will reap whatever benefits the standard of review may have to offer.  For example, if the standard of review provides the court with some discretion to vacate an award that conflicts with the clear and unambiguous terms of the reinsurance contract, and those terms support the client’s position, then the attorney must not only forcefully argue those terms are controlling, but also make clear (diplomatically, of course) that an award inconsistent with those terms will likely be vacated. 

C.     The Legal Landscape:  The Section 10(a)(4) Standard of Review Prior to Stolt-Nielsen

To better understand how Stolt-Nielsen changed the standard of review applicable to outcome challenges, it is helpful to review briefly the somewhat confused, pre-Stolt-Nielsen law on outcome-based standards of review. 

Section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act authorizes courts to vacate an arbitration award “where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.”  Prior to Hall Street Assoc. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. ___ (2008), courts interpreted Section 10(a)(4) in at least two different ways.  Some courts interpreted Section 10(a)(4) as limited to challenges based on whether the matter decided fell within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement or submission.  That begged the question whether, and, if so, to what extent, the outcome of a commercial arbitration award on an issue within the parties’ submission was subject to any review at all. 

The Supreme Court had provided only indirect guidance on the subject.   The Steel Workers’ Trilogy cases, and their progeny, had ruled that, in labor arbitration cases governed by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), the outcome of an award was subject to review to determine whether it drew “its essence from” the parties’ agreement, and was not based on the arbitrators’ “own notions of industrial justice.”  United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco,  484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987);  United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597 (1960).   And, as respects commercial arbitration awards, the Court suggested in dicta in Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 (1953), overruled on other grounds, Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989),  that an award could be vacated if it was in “manifest disregard of the law.”  This dicta was referred to with approval in First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942 (1995).

Based on this somewhat obscure guidance, a number of courts that had interpreted Section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act as limited to challenges to arbitral authority developed independent grounds to review the outcomes of awards, whether for “manifest disregard of the law,” or failure of the award to draw its essence from the parties’ agreement, a standard that we shall refer to as “manifest disregard of the agreement.”  Some courts adopted both standards, some only one. 

But some other courts held that one or both of these “manifest disregard” standards were impliedly incorporated within Section 10(a)(4) and that vacatur under Section 10(a)(4) was not limited to situations where arbitrators ruled on an issue that was outside the scope of their authority.  These courts held that arbitrators exceeded their powers by manifestly disregarding the law, the agreement or both.   

Whether or not a court adopted one or both standards of review, and whether or not they deemed those standards of review to be within or without Section 10(a)(4), courts often articulated the standards of review differently, and applied them with varying degrees of strictness or laxity.  But for the most part, all courts were reluctant to grant relief based on them save in fairly unusual circumstances. 

In 2008 the Court decided Hall Street, which held that the Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act stated the exclusive grounds available to challenge a commercial arbitration award.  In dicta the Court discussed whether “manifest disregard of the law” might be encompassed within Section 10(a)(4), but did not decide whether that was so. 

Courts that had ruled that “manifest disregard of the law,” “manifest disregard of the agreement,” or both, were independent grounds for vacatur were forced to reconsider whether those standards were, in fact, independent, or whether they were subsumed within Section 10(a)(4).  This led to some conflicting authority, with some courts holding that one or both of those standards were subsumed within Section 10(a)(4) and others concluding that one or both of these outcome-based standards of review did not survive Hall Street .     

D.     What did Stolt-Nielsen Have to Say About the Outcome-Based Standard of Review? 

On June 15, 2009 the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Stolt-Nielsen to consider “[w]hether imposing class arbitration on parties whose arbitration clauses are silent on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.”  As readers will recall, the parties had submitted to an arbitration panel the question whether the arbitration clauses contained in a series of charter-party agreements permitted or precluded class arbitration.  The Second Circuit held that the arbitration panel had not manifestly disregarded the law by imposing class arbitration on the parties even though their arbitration agreements were concededly silent on that score. 

On April 27, 2010, in a 5-3 decision authored by Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and joined in by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, the Court held that:  (a) the arbitration panel exceeded its powers under FAA Section 10(a)(4) by imposing class arbitration on the parties, because the panel’s decision was based solely on the arbitrators’ own notions of public policy rather than on the FAA, federal maritime, or New York State law; and (b) it was inconsistent with the FAA to impose class arbitration on the parties because it was undisputed that the parties had never consented to class arbitration, and implying such an agreement in the circumstances would drastically alter the nature of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate on a bilateral basis.

Although the Court could probably have decided the matter as one of arbitrability – the Stolt-Nielsen parties appeared to have reserved their rights to de novo review of the question whether the arbitrators had the power to render a binding decision on whether class arbitration was permitted in the face of silence – the Court initially addressed the question from the standpoint whether the award should be vacated based on the outcome.  And that determination required the Court to state the applicable standard of review for an outcome-based challenge to a commercial arbitration award. 

 The Court imported into the commercial context the labor-arbitration “manifest disregard of the agreement,” standard and found that it was subsumed within Section 10(a)(4).  It said that it was not deciding whether the “manifest disregard of the law” standard survived Hall Street (i.e., whether it was also part and parcel of Section 10(a)(4)), but declared that if it did, then it was satisfied here. 

Borrowing from the Steelworkers’ Trilogy line of labor arbitration cases decided about 50 years ago, and more recent labor-arbitration cases, the Court declared, “’It is only when [an] arbitrator strays from interpretation and application of the agreement and effectively ‘dispense[s] his own brand of industrial justice’ that his decision may be unenforceable.” Slip op. at 7 (quoting Major League Baseball Players Assoc. v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509 (2001) (per curiam)(quoting Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. at 597 (1960))).  

“In that situation,” said the Court, “an arbitration decision may be vacated under § 10(a)(4) of the FAA on the ground that the arbitrator ‘exceeded [his] powers,’ for the task of an arbitrator is to interpret and enforce a contract, not to make public policy.”  Applying that standard to the facts, the Court “conclude[d] that what the arbitration panel did was simply to impose its own view of sound policy regarding class arbitration.”  Slip op. at 7.

The Court explained that AnimalFeeds had made three arguments, one of which was that “the clause should be construed to permit class arbitration as a matter of public policy.”  Slip op. at 8 (quotation omitted).  Of the remaining two arguments, the panel had rejected one and said nothing about the other.  This led the Court to conclude that the arbitrators had accepted AnimalFeeds’ invitation to base its decision on public policy grounds.

The Court found further evidence that the panel based its decision on public policy in that the panel looked to previous arbitral decisions by other panels that had addressed the question and:  (a) “[p]erceiv[ed] .  .  . consensus among arbitrators that class arbitration is beneficial in ‘a wide variety of settings;’” and (b) considered “only whether there was any good reason not to follow that consensus .   .  .  .”  Slip op. at 9 (quotations omitted). 

The Court also found it relevant that the panel was not persuaded by Stolt-Nielsen’s unrebutted expert testimony — including testimony that there had never been a class arbitration under the form of charter party agreement used — or by pre-Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) decisions holding that courts could not compel class or consolidated arbitration where the parties’ agreements were silent on that score.    Slip op. at 9; see, e.g., Glencore Ltd. v. Schnitzer Steel Products, 189 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1999); United Kingdom v. Boeing Co., 998 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1993); and Champ v. Siegal Trading Co., 55 F.3d 269 (7th Cir. 1995).

The Court said that because the parties had stipulated that they had reached no agreement on class arbitration, the arbitrators should have inquired whether the  FAA, maritime law, or New York Law contained a “default rule” that applied.  But instead, “the panel proceeded as if it had the authority of a common-law court to develop what it viewed as the best rule to be applied in such a situation.”

The Court was not persuaded by the “references to intent” in the panel decision, including a reference to the parties’ broad arbitration clause.  The Court pointed out that the parties stipulated, and the arbitration panel acknowledged, that the charter party agreement was silent on permitting or precluding class arbitration, and “that the charter party was ‘not ambiguous so as to call for parol evidence.’”  Slip op. at 11 (quoting panel decision).  The stipulation “left no room for an inquiry regarding the parties’ intent, and any inquiry into that settled question would have been outside the panel’s assigned task.”   Slip op. at 11.

The implications of the Court’s ruling on the standard of review are many, and shall be discussed in Part II (here).

Editor’s Note:  Here’s a list of links for Parts I through V of our Stolt-Nielsen reinsurance-arbitration series: 

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.A, Part V. B, and Part V. C