Arbitration: did arbitrator exceed his powers under §10(a)(4) of the
Federal Arbitration Act? A party seeking relief under §10(a)(4) bears a heavy
burden. “It is not enough . . . to show that the arbitrator committed an
error—or even a serious error.” Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U. S., at 671.
Because the parties “bargained for the arbitrator’s construction of their agreement,”
an arbitral decision “even arguably construing or applying the contract” must
stand, regardless of a court’s view of its (de)merits. Eastern Associated
Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U. S. 57, 62. Thus, the sole
question on judicial review is whether the arbitrator interpreted the parties’
contract, not whether he construed it correctly. Here, the arbitrator twice
did what the parties asked: He considered their contract and decided whether
it reflected an agreement to permit class proceedings. That suffices to show
that he did not exceed his powers under §10(a)(4). Stolt-Neilsen does
not support Oxford’s contrary view. There, the parties stipulated that they had
not reached an agreement on class arbitration, so the arbitrators did not
construe the contract, and did not identify any agreement authorizing class
proceedings. This Court thus found not that they had misinterpreted the
contract but that they had abandoned their interpretive role. Here, in stark
contrast, the arbitrator did construe the contract, and did find an agreement
to permit class arbitration. So to overturn his decision, this Court would have
to find that he misapprehended the parties’ intent. But §10(a)(4) bars that
course: It permits courts to vacate an arbitral decision only when the
arbitrator strayed from his delegated task of interpreting a contract, not when
he performed that task poorly. (U.S.S.Ct., 10.06.13, Oxford Health Plans LLC v.
Sutter, J. Kagan, unanimous).
Arbitrage : excès de pouvoir de l'arbitre au sens du paragraphe 10(a)(4) de la loi
fédérale sur l'arbitrage : le pouvoir d'examen de la Cour s'agissant du
maintien ou de l'annulation de la décision de l'arbitre est très étroit. En
effet, la partie qui se plaint devant le Tribunal ordinaire de la décision de l'arbitre
ne saurait se limiter à soutenir que l'arbitre a commis une erreur
d'interprétation. Dès lors, même si l'arbitre s'est trompé, son erreur
subsistera, les parties ayant opté pour l'arbitrage et non pour une résolution
judiciaire de leur litige. Par contre, si l'arbitre a failli à sa mission
d'interpréter la volonté des parties, le Tribunal peut annuler sa décision.
No comments:
Post a Comment