The most important attempt to review mandatory arbitration procedures at the federal level was the Proposed Arbitration Act (AFA). Although there were different versions of the status, the latest version would amend the FAA to clarify that “… No pre-settlement agreement is valid or enforceable if it requires arbitration of an employment dispute, consumer dispute, agreement or civil law proceeding. 66 In addition to extending the scope of the FAA, the Court has limited the standard for reviewing arbitration awards, thereby limiting the ability of parties to challenge an arbitration decision in court. In 2008, the Hall Street Associates Court, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, held that the parties could not accept a court reviewing the decisions of their arbitration tribunals. In this case, the parties to a commercial lease had an arbitration agreement requiring arbitration for all disputes, but also provided that a court would have to act on any arbitration decision that was not supported by the facts or was based on an erroneous legal conclusion. While arbitration must be seen as a creature of the parties` contract, and the parties must be able to create arbitration systems as they wish, the Supreme Court refused to apply the parties` agreement on the scope of the audit. On the contrary, the liberal national policy in favour of arbitration requires a limitation of judicial review on the specific grounds enumerated in the FAA itself. In dicta, the Supreme Court also disparaged the long-established principle that courts may refuse to enforce arbitration awards “in clear disregard of the law.” Thus, after Hall Street, the reasons for the attack on an arbitration bonus became extremely narrow.
A clause that is missing from one of these aspects may be unusable or allow the other party to delay the proceedings as long as the ambiguity is resolved. For example, if the clause does not establish the number of arbitrators and does not agree on this issue, it must be determined by the institution that manages the arbitration procedure) or, if the parties have not agreed on an institution, the headquarters courts. The introduction of exemptions for collective actions is an important new feature of binding arbitration agreements, both in the employment and consumer sectors. The 2011 Supreme Court decision in at T/. Concepcion, which maintains the applicability of class action waiver declarations, encourages the adoption of class actions in arbitration agreements.