Monster Energy v. 城市饮料-第九巡回法院对业主中立的新披露规则

The real question here is not about disclosure, 而是关于重复玩家所带来的实质问题

Like judges, arbitrators are paid for their time. 当然，法官的薪水来自国库，而仲裁员的薪水则由双方支付. 可以自由选择最适合案件的仲裁员，这是仲裁的最大好处之一, but because some businesses are “repeat players,” appearing frequently before a particular arbitral body, 评论人士长期以来一直担心，“重复玩家”可能会给ADR提供商或仲裁员带来扭曲的激励. Monster Energy Co. v. City Beverages, LLC was a dispute between Monster, maker of a popular brand of “energy drinks,” and City Beverages, a franchisee that did business as Olympic Eagle. When Monster sought to terminate the parties’ contract, 奥林匹克鹰援引了华盛顿的特许经营投资保护法案, which requires good cause for a termination. Monster moved to compel arbitration with JAMS, 当事人协议约定的仲裁机构. The arbitrator, a former state court judge, found in Monster’s favor, 并命令奥林匹克鹰向怪兽支付300万美元的律师费. But when Monster sought to confirm the award, Olympic Eagle moved for vacatur, 认为仲裁员没有披露他在JAMS的所有权权益.

仲裁员确实披露了“每个JAMS都是中立的”,JAMS在整体经济上的成功对“他有经济利益”.他还透露，他曾在Monster是一方当事人的案件中担任仲裁员，双方“应假定与JAMS一起执业的另一名或多名中立人士参与了仲裁。, 当事人进行的调解或其他争议解决, 该案件的律师或保险公司，并可能在未来这样做.” Thus, 尽管仲裁员在仲裁前披露了JAMS未指明的经济利益, Olympic Eagle was unaware that he was also owner. 法院指出，JAMS“一再阻挠奥林匹克之鹰获取JAMS所有权结构和仲裁员仲裁后利益的详细信息.”

In a decision on October 22, 2019, the Ninth Circuit held, over a dissent, 仲裁员不提及他的所有权权益就足以证明他是清白的, 特别是考虑到怪兽公司在过去五年里管理的jam - 97案件的“比微不足道”的业务量.

The decision has garnered much attention, 尤其是因为JAMS的结构不同于其他一些仲裁提供商. The American Arbitration Association’s (AAA) arbitrators, for example, have no ownership interest in the AAA, and the AAA itself is a not-forprofit entity. AAA arbitrators are independent contractors, 对AAA的财务健康状况没有排他性要求或实质性利益. 异议人士认为，仲裁员披露的信息应该足以让奥林匹克鹰决定仲裁员是否有动机出于自己的商业目的而偏袒怪兽. Monster, after all, was a “repeat player,“仲裁员被尽可能多地指定参加仲裁符合其经济利益. 实际上，披露他在JAMS的所有权权益能带来什么呢?

But in the end, 即使第九巡回法院做出最后裁决，最高法院不复审此案, 这个决定不太可能在JAMS之外产生直接和广泛的影响. As the majority noted: going forward, JAMS的所有者中立者可能会在未决和未来的案件中更新他们的信息披露, and looking backward, 在FAA下寻求最终裁决真空的限制期是三个月. 因此，对于以前的仲裁裁决的最终结果，不应该存在大量的不确定性.

JAMS和其他拥有类似所有权结构的仲裁机构也可以考虑更新其取消仲裁员资格的程序. If Monster 是要成为一个有影响力的案例，它会在下一次鞋掉的时候出现吗. 当仲裁员披露了现在所要求的信息，会发生什么, a party (say, 一个消费者谁进入一个形式合同的协议仲裁)寻求取消资格仲裁员的偏爱, and the challenge is unsuccessful? 真正隐藏在这里的问题不是关于披露的问题, which as we have seen is a problem that can be remedied, 但有一个关于“重复玩家”(那些经常向仲裁机构提起诉讼的企业和律师事务所)带来的实质性问题.

David L. Evans is an attorney at Murphy & King and Theodore J. 福克曼是皮尔斯·班布里奇律师事务所的律师，都在马萨诸塞州波士顿.

“Monster Energy v. 城市饮料-第九巡回法院对业主中立的新披露规则刊登在“诉讼-替代争议解决实务要点”一节, January 2, 2020 © 2020, American Bar Association. All rights reserved. 未经美国律师协会书面明确同意，不得以任何形式或方式复制或传播本信息或其任何部分，或下载或存储在电子数据库或检索系统中. 本文仅代表作者个人观点，并不代表美国律师协会的立场或政策, the Section of Litigation, this committee, or the employer(s) of the author(s).