Hall Street Associates v. Mattel: End of the Heresy of Expanded Judicial Review of Arbitration?

Abstract

One of the most controversial issues in U.S. arbitration law in the past decade has been whether grounds for judicial review of arbitration provided by the Federal Arbitration Act (“ FAA” ) may be expanded by party agreement. The issue has sharply divided U.S. federal courts. In Hall Street Associates v. Mattel, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the statutory grounds for review are not expandable. The decision of the Supreme Court was long awaited and will probably be welcomed by the arbitration community. In this paper the author presents a comment on the court's holding in Hall Street, with an emphasis on the European perspective on the case, and analyses its implications for the practice of international arbitration.