Journal of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회지:중재연구)

The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Arbitrator's Duty to Disclose in the Context of U.S. Law: Focusing on Case Law's Evident Partiality

미국법 상의 중재인의 고지 의무: 판례법상 명백한 편파성을 중심으로

  • 신승남 (이화여자대학교 법학전문대학원)
  • Received : 2016.05.10
  • Accepted : 2016.05.29
  • Published : 2016.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The FAA provides that a district court may make an order vacating an arbitration award upon the application of any party to the arbitration where there was evident partiality on the arbitrator's behalf. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth Coatings Corp. held that arbitrators must disclose to the parties "any dealing that might create an impression of possible bias." Justice White attempted to limit the scope of evident partiality to instances where an arbitrator has a "substantial interest" in the dispute before disclosure is required. The Second Circuit held that if an arbitrator thinks that a nontrivial conflict of interest might exist, the arbitrator must either (i) conduct an investigation into the potential conflict, or (ii) disclose to the parties why he or she thinks there could be a conflict. Further, the arbitrator must disclose his or her intent not to investigate the matter. By utilizing a reasonable impression of partiality standard, the Ninth Circuit held that evident partiality can exist despite an arbitrator's actual acknowledgement of a conflict, and if an arbitrator fails to discharge his or her duty to investigate potential conflicts of interest, his or her constructive knowledge of the conflicts can give rise to evident partiality.

Keywords

References

  1. 김경배, "중재인의 공정성과 독립성에 관한 연구", 중재연구, 한국중재학회 제18권 제1호, 2008년.
  2. 김진현, 정용균, "미국의 중재판정 취소에 관한 연구:판례법과 제정법의 조화를 중심으로", 중재연구, 한국중재학회 제22권 제2호, 2012년.
  3. 신한동, "중재인의 고지의무에 관한 고찰 -한국 대법원판례를 중심으로-", 중재연구, 한국중재학회 제21권 제3호, 2011년.
  4. American Arbitration Association, Canon II, Code of Ethics.
  5. Ameser v. Nordstrom, Inc., 442 F. App'x 967, 968 (5th Cir. 2011)(percuriam).
  6. Ann Ryan Robertson, Feature, International Arbitration in the U.S.: Evident Partiality Based on Nondisclosure: Betwixt and Between, 45 HOUSTON LAWYER 22, 23 (2007).
  7. Applied Industry materials Corp., 492 F.3d at 137.
  8. Applied Indus. Materials Corp., 492 F.3d at 138.
  9. ARIAS-US, https://www.arias-us.org/ (2016년 5월 10일 방문)
  10. Availl, Inc. v. Ryder Sys., 110 F.3d 892, 895 (2d. Cir. 1997)
  11. Travelers Indemnity v. Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6684 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
  12. California Code of Civil procedure ${\S}$1297.121.
  13. Catherine A. Rogers, Regulating International Arbitrators: A Functional Approach to Developing Standards of Conduct, 41 Stan. J. Int'l L. 53, 117-20 (2005).
  14. Christopher D. Kratovil, Anne M. Johnson, Evident Partiality, 65 The Advoc. (Texas) 52 (2013).
  15. Claudia T. Salomon, et al., Arbitrator's Disclosure Standards: The Uncertainty Continues, 63 Dispute Resolution Journal 76, at 79 (2008).
  16. Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 393 U.S. 145 (1968)(plurality opinion).
  17. Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 382 F.2d 1010 (1st Cir. 1967).
  18. Commonwealth Coatings Corp., 393 U.S. at 146-47.
  19. Commonwealth Coatings Corp., 393 U.S. at 149.
  20. Commonwealth Coatings Corp., 393 U.S. at 151 (White, J.,concurring).
  21. Federal Arbitration Act, (9 U.S.C. section 10(a)).
  22. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Arbitration Rules, 2200. Communications and Disclosures.
  23. General Standard 7(c), International Bar Association Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, 2004.
  24. Geoff Nicholas & Constantine Partasides, LCIA Court Decision on Challenges to Arbitrators; A Proposal to Publish, 23 Arb. Int. 1 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/23.1.1
  25. HSMV Corp. v. ADI Ltd., 72 F.Supp. 2d 1122, 1129 (C.D. Cal. 1999).
  26. Peter L. Michaelson, In International Arbitration, Disclosure Rules at the Place of Enforcement Matter Too, 62 Disp. Resol. J. no.4, Nov. 2007-Jan. 2008, at 82,85.
  27. Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortg., 436 F.3d 495, 504 (5th Cir. 2006),rev'd on reh'g en banc, 476 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2007).
  28. Savers Prop. and Cas. Co., et al v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 708, 717 (6th Cir. 2014).
  29. Schmitz, 20 F.3d 1043, 9th Cir. (1994).
  30. Smith v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 233 F.3d 502, 506 (7th Cir. 2000).
  31. Steven Smith et al., International Commercial Dispute Resolution, 42 Int'l Law 363, 368-69 (2008).
  32. Sussex v. United States Dist. Court for the Dis. of Nev., 781 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2014).
  33. Tempo Shain Corp. v. Bertek, Inc., 120 F.3d, 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1997).
  34. Timothy W. Stalker, et al., Vacating Arbitration Awards Due To "Evident Partiality" Under The Federal Arbitration Act, 83 Defense Counsel Journal 207, 210 (2016).

Cited by

  1. 중국의 상사중재서비스 개방에 관한 연구 - 외국중재기관의 중국 내 상업적 주재를 통한 중재 서비스 제공을 중심으로 vol.30, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.16998/jas.2020.30.4.31