In previous articles in this column, I have had occasion to commend various decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for their approach to particular issues in the field of arbitration. In this column, I am compelled to criticize a recent decision, which had various arbitrator listservs abuzz with concern, on the ground that it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of how arbitration operates in practice. In making this criticism, I am mindful that the reason for this misunderstanding likely lies with the litigants, since it is their responsibility to educate a court as to the practices in the field that is the subject of the particular case.

Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London v. State of Florida, 2018 WL 2727492 (2d Cir. June 7, 2018) (Lloyds), concerned an appeal of a decision by the district court for the Southern District of New York vacating an arbitration award on the ground of “evident partiality” under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Arbitration Act. The district court found “evident partiality” on the part of a party-appointed arbitrator, Alex Campos, because he had failed to disclose certain of his relationships with his appointing party.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]