Hall Street Research Articles

How Should We Sequence the Treatments for Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction?: A Redefinition of Evidence-Based Medicine.

How Should We Sequence the Treatments for Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction?: A Redefinition of Evidence-Based Medicine.

Revitalizing Environment Order against Spatial Outside in Cikapayang River Park Area

Cikapayang River Park’s pedestrian area that’s less organised from ecological and environmental side. New cikapayang River Park aims to provide comfortable public space while utilizing river as mutually interconnected supporting component. Outer space Environmental order includes environmental order against outer order, Merdeka street corridor which’s restricted by Cikapayang river, Bandung City Hall, Cikapayang River and Merdeka street, also Cikapayang river purification. Previously, Cikapayang River Park’s a single function as sidewalk, after revitalization, it has additional function as better public open spaces also Cikapayang river restoration became basis of this research. Analytical descriptive method used as methodology through direct survey to Cikapayang River Park from changing environmental order into public open space, then associating survey results conditions, before and after revitalizing to literature as basis of theories and river purrification. Analysis results showed impact of revitalization on Cikapayang River Park’s creating positive outdoor space, so it can accommodate the people activities.

The New York Convention and the American Federal System

Virtually all American states have statutes that make arbitration agreements and awards enforceable and that set out procedures for their enforcement in state courts. A number of states, including California, Texas, and Florida, have enacted international arbitration statutes to supplement their domestic arbitration laws.2 But this extensive body of state arbitration law has had only a “marginal impact” on American arbitration practice – particularly international arbitration practice because the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts conflicting state arbitration laws, even in state court. Although we know that the FAA preempts state law, the scope of that preemptive effect is not clear. Indeed, a pair of United States Supreme Court cases have suggested a possible broader role for state law in arbitration matters. In Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel Inc., the Court indicated in dicta that parties might be able to contract for expanded review under state law although the FAA does not permit them to do so.5 And in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., the Court suggested that the arbitrators might not have exceeded their powers in construing an arbitration clause to permit class arbitration if they had relied on a state default rule permitting class arbitration. Whether state law can play a broader role in international arbitration matters in the United States depends on the extent to which the New York Convention and Chapter Two of the FAA (which implements the Convention) preempt state arbitration law. This article undertakes a preliminary analysis of that broad topic by examining several legal questions central to determining the preemptive effect of the New York Convention: (1) What effect, if any, does the federal-state clause (Article XI) have on U.S. obligations under the Convention? (2) To what extent does Chapter Two of the FAA apply in state court? and (3) Is the New York Convention self-executing? Part II briefly sets out background information on the New York Convention and its implementation in the U.S. Part III describes three models of how an arbitration convention might be implemented: the “exclusive spheres” model, the “federal preemption” model, and the “access” model. Part IV analyzes the legal questions identified above and considers their implications for the models. Part V discusses the extent to which parties can contract out of the FAA and into state arbitration law. Finally, Part VI identifies some possible implications of this analysis and concludes.

Judicial review under the UK and US Arbitration Acts: Is arbitration a better substitute for litigation?

This paper will examine and analyse the respective arbitration acts of England and the U.S. with a view to determining which one of the jurisdictions provides a better system for confirmation, vacation and modification of arbitration awards. In order to attain this objective, the central issues will be whether judicial review is adopted in any of these jurisdictions, and if so, whether this adversely affects the speed and costs of arbitration. Consequently, in the first section, the US Federal Arbitration Act will be examined in order to determine the answer to the former question. In this respect, particular attention will be paid to the recent Supreme Court decision in Hall Street Associates v. Mattel Inc, inasmuch as the ruling has made a drastic impact on this matter. In this section, it will be concluded that the U.S. law does not recognise judicial review for error of law, and the U.S court’s reliance on the “manifest disregard of law” as a ground for the vacation of an award has now considerably reduced with the highlighted decision.In the second section, the legal position under English law will be examined in light of the UK Arbitration Act. As a consequence, the paper will reveal the fact that the English approach pertaining to this issue is strikingly different from that in the U.S. law, as the English courts still retain the right to review the award for error of law. After setting forth the parties’ positions in both jurisdictions, which jurisdiction is favourable for the parties seeking to arbitrate with less costs and delays will be discussed.

Vacating Arbitration Awards for Manifest Disregard of the Law

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was enacted in 1925 by Congress to establish a national policy favoring arbitration and to end judicial indisposition to arbitration. Since then, courts have routinely enforced arbitration clauses in contracts. The FAA provides for expedited, but limited, judicial review of arbitration awards. The FAA sets forth specific grounds for vacating and modifying arbitration awards. Controversy arose, and remains, in the courts over whether there are other, nonstatutory grounds for judicial review of arbitration awards. This paper will examine the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the FAA in Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., regarding the nonstatutory ground for vacating arbitration awards known as “manifest disregard of the law.” Also addressed is the subsequent case treatment of Hall Street as it relates to manifest disregard of the law as grounds for vacating arbitration awards under the FAA.

'Final' Awards Reconceptualized: A Proposal to Resolve the Hall Street Circuit Split

This article discusses the current circuit split over the continued validity of manifest disregard of the law (“manifest disregard”) as a nonstatutory ground for vacatur of arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Today, as commercial parties decide whether to include arbitration agreements in their business contracts, they weigh the risks of proceeding to arbitration versus litigation to resolve their disputes. This topic is especially pertinent in light of the current economic climate. Dicta from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. called into question the continued validity of nonstatutory grounds for vacatur. The circuit courts have severely split on the question of one ground in particular: manifest disregard. Although seemingly ripe for review, the Supreme Court has appeared reluctant to resolve the issue, even side-stepping the Second Circuit’s opinion in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. and ruling on other grounds. Rather than opining on which side of the split should prevail, this article posits first that manifest disregard should never have been a valid ground for vacatur under the FAA. Next, the article takes a historical perspective that shows the FAA does not allow courts to look at the merits of an arbitration award. Instead, courts should look only to the award itself, determining its enforceability exclusive of the merits of the arbitrator’s or tribunal’s decision. Inquiry into the merits of the decision violates the FAA and damages arbitration’s finality and efficiency, two of the most important benefits of the arbitration bargain. Excluding the merits from judicial review conforms to FAA requirements and retains these two critical benefits. In other words, this article proposes a resolution to the circuit split that maintains the integrity of both the FAA and the arbitration process without excluding concerns surrounding a full abandonment of judicial review.

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

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.

A pharmacologic model of Huntington's chorea.

Journal Article A pharmacologic model of Huntington's chorea Get access R E Dill, R E Dill Baylor College of Dentistry, Department of Microscopic Anatomy. 800 Hall Street, Dallas, Texas 75226, U.S.A. Correspondence: Baylor College of Dentistry, Department of Microscopic Anatomy. 800 Hall Street, Dallas, Texas 75226, U.S.A. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar R L Dorris, R L Dorris Baylor College of Dentistry, Department of Microscopic Anatomy. 800 Hall Street, Dallas, Texas 75226, U.S.A. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar I Phillips-Thonnard I Phillips-Thonnard Baylor College of Dentistry, Department of Microscopic Anatomy. 800 Hall Street, Dallas, Texas 75226, U.S.A. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Volume 28, Issue 8, August 1976, Pages 646–648, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7158.1976.tb02820.x Published: 12 April 2011 Article history Received: 22 March 1976 Published: 12 April 2011

Expanded Levels of Review in Light of Hall Street

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Reconsidering Arbitration: Evaluating the Future of the Manifest Disregard Standard

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court indicated that parties may now have fewer rights to appeal arbitration awards. In Hall Street v. Mattel, Inc., the Court found that parties to an arbitration agreement could not supplement, by contract, the statutory grounds for challenging an arbitration award. Unfortunately, the Court called into doubt a long line of cases holding that a party could seek to vacate an arbitration decision where the arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard for the law.Until the Hall Street decision, the manifest disregard doctrine enjoyed widespread acceptance. Appellate courts from every circuit have used the manifest disregard doctrine as a supplement to the statutory standards for vacatur of an arbitration award. The manifest disregard doctrine has been heavily litigated, and a number of decisions exist establishing and clarifying the meaning of “manifest disregard”.At this point, the consequences of Hall Street remain unclear. The Court cast doubt on whether manifest disregard survives, and listed several possibilities for what it might mean if so. In effect, the Court created further confusion and then failed to resolve it. Lower courts have been left to struggle with the aftermath. Federal courts have since split roughly three ways on the question of whether manifest disregard survives Hall Street.This article examines the bases for challenging arbitration awards – the statutory grounds as well as the common law manifest disregard doctrine. The article examines the past and present status of the manifest disregard doctrine. The article concludes by examining the possible courses of action that could be taken as well as my proposed solution. I propose a solution that would permit the continued use of the standard, while at the same time satisfying the concerns raised by the Supreme Court.

Business Law - The Hall Street Hangover: Recovering and Discovering Avenues for Review of Arbitration Awards; Hall Street Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008)

Business Law - The Hall Street Hangover: Recovering and Discovering Avenues for Review of Arbitration Awards; Hall Street Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008)

The Arbitrator as Agent: Why Deferential Review is Not Always Pro-Arbitration

It has long been thought that minimal judicial review of arbitral awards helps further the federal policy of supporting arbitration. This contribution to a symposium on Judge Easterbrook’s judicial contributions argues that this position has its limits. Viewing the arbitrator as an agent of the parties, as Judge Easterbrook does in the 2001 case of George Watts and Sons v. Tiffany, helps to illuminate that parties might sometimes want to choose a higher level of judicial review than the minimal level required by the Federal Arbitration Act. Allowing parties to opt into higher levels of review might allow high-quality arbitrators to trade on their skill, ensuring that the pool of arbitrators as a whole is of higher quality. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Hall Street Associates v. Mattel, however, holds that parties cannot contract for higher levels of review of arbitral awards. Hall Street, perversely, might reduce the overall quality of arbitration, leading to more contract disputes in the federal courts.

Hall Street, Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards, and Federal Preemption

The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. resolved an important conflict amongst the Circuits as to whether parties could contractually expand the scope of judicial review of awards set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). While the Court held that such attempts were impermissible because the FAA's bases to vacate or modify awards, however narrow, were exclusive, its opinion nonetheless raised more questions than it answered. One such issue was what was to become of manifest disregard, a judicially created ground to refuse confirmation intended to cover those unusual situations where arbitrators reached wholly bizarre results based on seemingly purposeful departures from basic rules of law. Manifest disregard is not referenced as such by the FAA, but, perhaps said the Court, it was nothing more than a reference to the sort of abuse of arbitral power which was specified in the FAA as a basis to refuse confirmation. This was to provoke a split commentary as to whether manifest disregard was still with us. The second such issue was raised by the Court's reference to the latitude parties might have to circumvent the FAA's review restrictions by arranging for review pursuant to state statute or even common law. Would review really be broader under these rubrics, and how would parties to an FAA case escape its post-award provisions, particularly given principles of preemption. Could a case be an FAA case for some purposes, but not for purposes of confirmation. This article deals with the issues just identified, and also traces early attempts by lower federal and state courts to intuit the Supreme Court's intentions in raising, but not answering them.

Impactful Case Summaries: an Analysis of Developing Arbitral Jurisprudence in the United States

ABSTRACT: The Miami Arbitration Reports cover a number of topics, all of them relevant to the in­tersection between American law and international arbitration. This collection begins with a number of eye-catching decisions. First, the Sixth and Second Circuits have resurrected the non-statutory ground of "manifest disregard" for vacating an arbitral award. After what seemed like the final word from the US Supreme Court, it looks like the law is continuing to diversify and provide greater un­certainty. Second, the battle to obtain discovery in the United States in aid of private international Tribunals has started to really become interesting. At first, it appeared that the Federal courts would routinely enforce petitions for discovery, but the Southern District of Texas has taken a different path and laid down a challenge to other courts throughout the country. Third, the Fifth Circuit has defined the standard for non-signatories to compel arbitration, but the standard raises questions about the Federal policy favoring arbitration and conflicts over the effectiveness of the standard. And finally, in a case that is very important for those working with consumer contracts, the Eighth Circuit has taken great efforts to provide a workable standard for class action waivers. Then the Reports return to de­velopment of the case law after Hall Street. The Ninth Circuit takes up the challenge to interpret Hall Street and the definition of manifest disregard. After noting changes in the Second and Sixth Circuits last edition, the Ninth Circuit adds its voice to the conversation. Second, we profile the Arbitration Fairness Act and its potential effects on American law. With a new President and Congress, many people expect the Act to be passed, and it is crucial to understand it and how it can impact any arbitration with certain connections to American law. Third, the Third Circuit has delved into maritime law to decide how a party can secure a potential arbitral award by beginning proceedings against the ship. The decision has a complex factual and procedural history, and it has a significant impact for litigation arising from contracts on the high seas. And finally, the Eleventh Circuit has charted a course for courts to punish recalcitrant parties who abuse the appellate process by challenging arbitral awar­ds under the manifest disregard standard. These cases seek to stem the tide of unnecessary appeals that dramatically slow the arbitration process. To finish the collection, the Reports conclude with a number of interesting cases. First, we discuss the decisions in both the United States and France regarding the ability of parties to blame the institution for aspects of the award or proceedings that do not work out according to plan. While none of the courts sided with the parties seeking relief, none of the courts closed the option. In the future, we might see more cases against arbitral institutions, and it is important to note the developing trend. Second, we return to the topic of manifest disregard one more time to see how another court interprets the Supreme Court's opinion in Hall Street. This decision is particularly interesting due to its discussion of the history of arbitration and the strength of the opinion relative to the other courts of appeal. Third, we venture into the world of labor arbitration. While many readers may not be particularly familiar with the topic, the Supreme Court has written a thought provoking opinion with implications for the international arbitration community. Finally, we analyze a recent decision from the D.C. Circuit that discusses two important topics: arbitration in the context of joint venture agreements and the length of time an arbitral clause can survive.

Stolt‐Nielsen's comfort for the ‘average arbitrator’: An analysis of the post‐Hall Street ‘manifest disregard’ award review standard

AbstractChristopher Walsh, of Newark, N.J., looks at the current state of the longstanding use of manifest disregard as an addition to Federal Arbitration Act standards for challenging awards. He focuses on the recent Second Circuit case of Stolt‐Nielsen v. Animalfeeds.

Finality over Choice:Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v.Mattel, Inc.(U.S. Supreme Court)

In Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that, under the Federal Arbitration Act, parties to an arbitration agreement may not contract for broader judicial review of arbitral awards than the grounds provided for in the FAA itself. The Supreme Court’s decision resolved a disagreement on this point among lower courts in the United States. The Court’s decision will have no effect on international arbitration agreements in which the parties did not seek to expand judicial review. But it seems highly unlikely that courts will enforce provisions of arbitration agreements that do call for broader review by courts. The decision in Hall Street sought to resolve a tension between two competing values in arbitration law: the desire for quick and final decisions versus the goal of enforcing the contractual choices of parties. In Hall Street, finality won out over party autonomy. In the course of reaching its decision, the Supreme Court discussed, but left untouched, “manifest disregard of the law,” an important common law ground on which an arbitration award may be vacated. The lower federal courts that have considered the issue all agree that arbitral awards are subject to review for manifest disregard of the law, though they differ on the nature and extent of that review. While the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the existence of the “manifest disregard” doctrine opened the door for private parties to expand judicial review by contract, it did not alter pre–existing case law on the availability of review of arbitral awards for “manifest disregard”of the law.

California's top court: This isn't Hall Street, so judicial review is OK

AbstractThe California Supreme Court decided that in certain circumstances, allowing parties to contract for heightened judicial review of their arbitration awards is just fine, carving an exception to the general Hall Street Associates rule the U.S. Supreme Court established in March. And more.

Supreme Court of the United States, No. 06–989, Hall Street Associates, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Mattel, Inc. On Writ Of Certiorari to the United States

Supreme Court of the United States, No. 06–989, Hall Street Associates, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Mattel, Inc. On Writ Of Certiorari to the United States

So you still want judicial review of your arbitration award?

AbstractIn the wake of the Supreme Court's Hall Street Associates decision rejecting arbitration judicial review, Helena Tavares Erickson, of New York, discusses the option of appellate arbitration.

The calm and the storm: Arbitration experts speak out on Hall Street Associates

AbstractA dozen arbitration experts weigh the effects of the late March U.S. Supreme Court Hall Street Associates decision. Plus: Even more Supreme Court arbitration news.