On Wednesday, November 7, 2007, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., No. 06-989, in which the court is examining whether parties can contract for arbitration agreements that allow for judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision beyond that which is already provided for in the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). 

Recently, in New Regency Productions, Inc. v. Nippon Herald Films, Inc., No. 05-55224 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2007), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s vacatur of an arbitration award based upon evident partiality of the arbitrator, holding that an arbitrator has a duty to investigate possible conflicts arising from new employment and an obligation to disclose that employment to the parties. 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s decision finding that a cedent’s appointment of an arbitrator in a reinsurance arbitration was invalid because it did not fall within the time limitations set forth by the reinsurance contract at issue. 

Recently, in Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 05-5355 (E.D. Pa. September 5, 2007), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was asked to determine which of four arbitration panels should decide the question of whether individual arbitration proceedings should be consolidated. 

The Reinsurance Association of American (“RAA”) recently joined a reinsurer in urging the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to overturn a decision of the Northern District of Oklahoma that held that Oklahoma’s Uniform Arbitration Act (the “Oklahoma Act”) prohibits arbitration agreements in reinsurance contracts. 

A recent ruling from the English Commercial Court illuminates one risk with the use of the Bermuda form arbitration clause:  if the losing party is dissatisfied with the arbitration result, it may not be permitted to challenge the result under New York law in a New York court, but may instead be limited to challenging the arbitration award under English law in English court.