Arbitration Agreements, Expanded Judicial Review, and Preemption - Hall Street Associates and NAFTA Traders, Inc. - a National Debate with International Implications

By Grubbs, J. Keaton; Blount, Justin R. et al. | Southern Law Journal, Spring 2014 | Go to article overview

Arbitration Agreements, Expanded Judicial Review, and Preemption - Hall Street Associates and NAFTA Traders, Inc. - a National Debate with International Implications


Grubbs, J. Keaton, Blount, Justin R., Post, Kyle C., Southern Law Journal


I. INTRODUCTION

On May 13, 2011, the Texas Supreme Court, in construing the Texas Arbitration Act, rejected the U. S. Supreme Court's analysis in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc} At issue was whether the parties may by agreement expand judicial review of an arbitration award beyond the specific grounds for vacatur or modification set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act. In NAFTA Traders, Inc. v. Quinn* 1 2 the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas Arbitration Act does not preclude the parties from supplementing judicial review by contract. A discussion on the reasoning of the Texas Court and others that have addressed this issue, together with implications, is vital to moving forward with contractual arbitration domestically and internationally.

The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") of 19253 prescribes the grounds for confirmation, vacatur, or modification of an arbitration award. The statutory grounds are set forth in §§ 9, 10 and 11 of the FAA.4 In Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., the U. S. Supreme Court stated of these statutory grounds:

Sections 10 and 11, after all, address egregious departures from the parties' agreed-upon arbitration: "corruption," "fraud," "evident partiality," "misconduct," "misbehavior," "exceeding] . . . powers," "evident material miscalculation," "evident material mistake," "award[s] upon a matter not submitted;" the only ground with any softer focus is "imperfect[ions]," and a court may correct those only if they go to "[a] matter of form not affecting the merits."5

In addition, a non-statutory ground for vacating an arbitral award was developed in the courts as the doctrine of "manifest disregard." The doctrine arose in 1953 from language in Wilko v. Swan,6 where the Supreme Court stated, "the interpretations of the law by the arbitrators in contrast to manifest disregard are not subject, in the federal courts, to judicial review for error in interpretation."7 Generally, under the "manifest disregard" doctrine a court manifestly disregards the law when an arbitrator knows of a clear legal principle and refuses to apply it.8 In addition to "manifest disregard of the law," the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized a non-statutory ground based on "public policy."9

In Hall Street the U.S. Supreme Court ostensibly abolished all nonstatutory grounds for judicial review, including "manifest disregard" and "public policy," and held that, "[t]he FAA's grounds for prompt vacatur and modification of awards are exclusive for parties seeking expedited review under the FAA."10 In reaching this conclusion, the Court suggested that '"manifest disregard' can be read as merely referring to the § 10 grounds collectively, rather than adding to them ... or as shorthand for the § 10 subsections authorizing vacatur when arbitrators were 'guilty of misconduct' or 'exceeded their powers.'"11

The Circuit courts were in conflict over the exclusiveness of the FAA provisions and the non-statutory doctrine of "manifest disregard" before Hall, and some still question whether "manifest disregard" survived the Hall Street decision.12 More importantly, the ruling in Hall Street is of great significance to arbitration as an ADR process. Arbitration is a matter of contract between the parties, and parties typically provide for judicial review of the arbitral award in their agreement. The Supreme Court's ruling in Hall Street precludes any such agreement, and now the statutory grounds for vacating or modifying an arbitration award under the FAA "are exclusive and cannot be supplemented by contract."13 The Court went on to say, however, that:

In holding that §§10 and 11 provide exclusive regimes for the review provided by the statute, we do not purport to say that they exclude more searching review based on authority outside the statute as well. The FAA is not the only way into court for parties wanting review of arbitration awards: they may contemplate enforcement under state statutory or common law, for example, where judicial review of different scope is arguable. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Arbitration Agreements, Expanded Judicial Review, and Preemption - Hall Street Associates and NAFTA Traders, Inc. - a National Debate with International Implications
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.