| 5. There are reasons for the RUAA not to embrace either the |
"manifest disregard" or the "public policy" standards of court |
review of arbitral awards. The first is presented by the |
omission from the FAA of either standard. Given that omission, |
there is a very significant question of possible FAA |
preemption of a such a provision in the RUAA, should the |
Supreme Court or Congress eventually confirm that the four |
narrow grounds for vacatur set out in Section 10(a) of the |
federal act are the exclusive grounds for vacatur. The second |
reason for not including these vacatur grounds is the dilemma |
in attempting to fashion unambiguous, "bright line" tests for |
these two standards. The case law on both vacatur grounds is |
not just unsettled but also is conflicting and indicates |
further evolution in the courts. As a result, the Drafting |
Committee concluded not to add these two grounds for vacatur |
in the statute. A motion to include the ground of "manifest |
disregard" in Section 23(a) was defeated by the Committee of |
the Whole at the July, 2000, meeting of the National |
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. |