USA Law and Practice Contributed by: Courtney Scobie and Jack Edwards, Ajamie LLP
family disputes by the court system leads to limita- tions on arbitration in these areas. 13.3 Circumstances to Challenge an Arbitral Award There are limited grounds on which an arbitral award can be challenged. These grounds are outlined in the FAA and apply to both domestic and international arbitration. • Fraud, corruption, or misconduct – a party may challenge an arbitral award if there is evidence of fraud, corruption, or other misconduct by an arbitrator or the opposing party. Such misconduct must have had a material impact on the award. • Exceeding arbitrator’s authority – if an arbitrator exceeds their authority (eg, issues an award that goes beyond the scope of the arbitration agree- ment), a party can challenge the award. • Arbitrator bias or partiality – if the arbitrator exhib- ited bias or partiality that materially affected the award, the award may be challenged. This bias can be evident from the arbitrator’s behaviour, actions or financial interests that show a lack of neutrality. • Due process violation or lack of arbitration agree- ment – if due process was not followed or there was no valid arbitration agreement, a party can challenge the award. • Public policy violation – an arbitral award that vio- lates established public policy may be challenged. This ground is narrowly construed. 13.4 Procedure for Enforcing Domestic and Foreign Arbitration Enforcing domestic and foreign arbitration awards involves the following specific procedures. • Request for confirmation – the prevailing party must first confirm the award court. This involves filing a petition to confirm the award, along with a copy of the arbitration agreement and the award itself. • Court confirmation – if the court is satisfied that the arbitration award meets the legal requirements and is not subject to challenge, it will confirm the award and issue a judgment in favour of the prevailing party. This judgment can then be enforced as per any other court judgment.
• Enforcement – once the court judgment confirm- ing the arbitration award is obtained, the prevailing party can take legal action to enforce the judg- ment, such as seeking to collect monetary dam- ages or obtain specific performance. 14. Outlook 14.1 Proposals for Dispute Resolution Reform There are no specific proposals for comprehensive dispute resolution reform in the USA. 14.2 Growth Areas The US Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo , 445 S Ct 2244 (2024) (“Loper Bright”) has the potential to dramatically impact the US federal court system, including com- mercial disputes. In Loper Bright , the US Supreme Court overturned its own long-standing principle known as “Chevron deference” – ie, where courts would defer to a federal agency’s reasonable inter- pretation of a statute or regulation when that stat- ute or regulation was silent or ambiguous. The court concluded that this principle violated the Administra- tive Procedure Act, which sets up the procedures for federal agency action, and that courts should resolve such matters without deferring to the agency. The Loper Bright decision could send many decisions that used to be made by federal agencies to the federal courts. The Loper Bright ruling directly affects actions by administrative agencies but will also affect commer- cial disputes between private parties. Many federal statutes and regulations – such as securities and antitrust regulations, environmental statutes and reg- ulations, as well as Department of Labor regulations concerning employment agreements, wage-and-hour laws, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) – are at the heart of many commercial disputes. If litigants claim a statute or regulation is ambiguous, this could increase the complexity of that case and in turn increase the workload of the federal court system, which is already overburdened and understaffed. An increase in this workload could cause delays in other matters.
1208 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook