Manifest Disregard of Law? - Part 2, Chapter 3 - AAA Yearbook on Arbitration and the Law - 23rd Edition
James H. Carter is a Partner in the New York office of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP and co-chair of its International Arbitration and Cross-Border Dispute Resolution practice, in which he is active as counsel and as an arbitrator. He is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, attended Cambridge University as a Fulbright Scholar and served as Law Clerk to Hon. Robert P. Anderson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Mr. Carter is a former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the American Arbitration Association and is a former Chair of its Nominating and Governance Committee, and during 2004-06 he was President of the American Society of International Law. He is also a former Chair of the American Bar Association Section of International Law and Practice and served as Chair of its Committee on International Commercial Arbitration. Mr. Carter has chaired both the International Affairs Council and the Committee on International Law of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, as well as the International Law Committee of the New York State Bar Association. He has served as a member of the London Court of International Arbitration and Vice President of its North American Council and is a member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Florence J. Goal is an Associate in the Investigations and Criminal Litigation group of the Washington, D.C. office of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP. She has experience in complex international commercial litigation, securities, and insurance. She is a graduate of Rice University and Harvard Law School.
With the passage of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") on February 12, 1925, Congress instituted a policy favoring the resolution of disputes through arbitration.1 The FAA provides grounds for vacatur of arbitral awards under Sections 10 and for their correction or modification under Section 11, but the statute provides quite deferential standards for this of judicial review. Section 10 of the FAA provides that
[i]n any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon application of any party to the arbitration (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means; (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or (4) 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.2