3 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Tenaska Energy, Inc. v. Ponderosa Pine Energy No. 12-0789

    Texas Tech Law ReviewMay 23, 2014

    Co., 393 U.S. 145, 149 (1968), held that a neutral arbitrator is evidently partial if they fail to disclose facts that might, to an objective observer, create a reasonable impression of their partiality. The Texas Supreme Court, in Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. TUCO Inc., 960 S.W.2d 629, 630 (Tex. 1997), held that a party does not waive an evident partiality challenge if it proceeds to arbitrate without knowledge of the undisclosed facts. “In short, the standard for evident partiality in Commonwealth Coatings and TUCO requires vacating an award if an arbitrator fails to disclose facts which might, to an objective observer, create a reasonable impression of the arbitrator’s partiality, but information that is trivial will not rise to this level and need not be disclosed.”

  2. Texas Supreme Court Orders and Opinion (5/23/14)

    Thompson & KnightRich PhillipsMay 23, 2014

    In a unanimous opinion by Justice Guzman, the Court found that there was evidence of evident partiality because the arbitrator failed to make a full disclosure. The Court applied its holding from Northern Railroad Co. v. TUCO Inc., 960 S.W.2d 629, 636 (Tex. 1997), that "evident partiality is established from the nondisclosure itself, regardless of whether the nondisclosed information necessarily establishes partiality or bias." The Court found that the undisclosed information was sufficient to create, in an objective observer, "a reasonable impression of the arbitrator’s partiality."

  3. Texas Supreme Court Orders and Opinion (5/23/14)

    Thompson & Knight LLPMay 23, 2014

    In a unanimous opinion by Justice Guzman, the Court found that there was evidence of evident partiality because the arbitrator failed to make a full disclosure. The Court applied its holding from Northern Railroad Co. v. TUCO Inc., 960 S.W.2d 629, 636 (Tex. 1997), that "evident partiality is established from the nondisclosure itself, regardless of whether the nondisclosed information necessarily establishes partiality or bias." The Court found that the undisclosed information was sufficient to create, in an objective observer, "a reasonable impression of the arbitrator’s partiality."