Judge Denies Sealing Confidential O'Reilly Settlements

This week, U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts, who is presiding over a federal defamation suit filed last year in New York refused to seal the confidential settlements reached between Bill O’Reilly and three women who accused the former Fox News host of misconduct. She rejected O’Reilly’s request to keep the agreements private, finding there is a long-established “general presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents.” She wrote that his concerns about disclosing “embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications” are not sufficient to trump the public’s right to view documents the court relies on to reach its decision in a case. “A possibility of future adverse impact on employment or the celebrity status of a party is not a ‘higher value’ sufficient to overcome the presumption of access to judicial documents,” Batts wrote. The judge noted, O’Reilly “asks the court to resolve a dispute by relying on the very documents he seeks to shield from public view.” Reportedly, the judge’s ruling creates an opening for attorneys to file the confidential agreements reached with the women who had accused O’Reilly of misconduct, and are now suing him for defamation for publicly dismissing their allegations as “politically and financially motivated” and part of a “smear campaign.” A former producer on The O’Reilly Factor who received a $9 million settlement was required to forfeit all audio recordings and written material — including notes, diaries, photographs, video recordings, letters and emails-- and to delete any computer files. She agreed to keep even the existence of such evidence confidential. Should the materials later become public, she was to disclaim them as counterfeit or forgeries and strict and complete confidentiality was the essence of this agreement. “The parties agree that the nature and terms of this settlement and agreement, including the existence of this agreement and the fact and amounts of any payments are to remain completely confidential.” A former Fox Business News host received a $3.25 million settlement from O’Reilly, a payout not previously disclosed. Under that settlement's terms, she could only disclose the amount of the payout to her tax advisers after the accountant signed a confidentiality agreement. The only person she told about the settlement was her husband. She, too, agreed to turn over any notes, recordings, emails, computer files or other documents dealing with any conversation she ever had with O’Reilly. The last woman received a settlement of about $100,000 as a junior producer at Fox News, in exchange for her silence. If anyone should ask what happened, she was to respond: “The matter has been resolved (or settled).” She also agreed not to disparage Fox News or any of its employees, including O’Reilly. The court opined that public would have no way to make sense of the its analysis of these claims with only partial or limited access to the settlement agreements. Just as with a Common Law right, she says, the First Amendment protects access to judicial documents if the documents “are necessary to understand the merits” of the proceeding. See full story here-- https://bit.ly/2EqvkA7 and link to ruling refusing to seal agreements here-- https://bit.ly/2GD1ZnZ

America's Cup Arbitration

This month, America's Cup officials released the 2017 regatta schedule for Bermuda while continuing to remain silent about an arbitration panel decision that reportedly went against organizers and could cost them several million dollars. Team New Zealand is in line to receive a seven figure pay-out after winning a bitter dispute over a breach of contract with the America's Cup Events Authority (ACEA) that reportedly reneged on an agreement awarding Auckland hosting rights of the America's Cup qualifier. After delays of more than a year, an arbitration panel finally assembled last summer to hear the case. It is believed the panel, the make-up of which is still unknown, ruled in Team New Zealand's favor. With blanket confidentiality clauses in place around arbitration, the decision was not publicly released. Since the dispute was lodged, teams have been working on a new timetable which prevents them from launching their boats until the end of this year, making it impossible to reinstate the regatta in Auckland. The competitors voted that all and any detail surrounding any arbitration remain confidential. The decision prohibits teams and individuals from discussing or even confirming the existence of a dispute before the arbitration panel. Doing so could draw sanctions including censure and a fine of up to $1 million. In past America's Cups, quasi-judicial proceedings were conducted with a high degree of transparency as to issues, when they were being heard, and the outcome. Unlike today, previous America's Cup Arbitration Panels even adopted the practice of going a step further and allowed a couple of members of the media to observe the proceedings and report back to a general pool. The defender, Oracle Team USA, will compete in the America's Cup match next summer. The qualifiers will eliminate one of the five challengers. The remaining four will then go into a playoff to determine which team will face two-time defending champion USA. See more here-- http://bit.ly/2fhjikF and http://es.pn/2ecE3tr and http://bit.ly/2fhku7I

Arbitration Questions

This week, perhaps because of the recent depiction of an arbitration on a couple of episodes of HBO's popular Sunday night show, Silicon Valley, I've been getting some queries on the process. One question was whether confidential matters could be disclosed when the arbitrator renders detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law in a reasoned award. Often we are asked not to provide reasoned awards for this purpose. Confidentiality can be preserved is through the use of confidentiality agreements or by including liquidated damages clauses within the arbitration provisions of the subject contract itself. Parties subject to such an arbitration clause agree that they would be entitled to specified damages for breach upon disclosure of information designated as confidential. Another topic that arose was whether there is a right to appeal an arbitrator’s award as one might a judgment rendered in a trial court. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a court must confirm an arbitration award except in limited circumstances. The FAA provides few grounds for vacating an arbitration award. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed only a handful of exclusive means for vacating an award under the FAA. These are limited to narrowly defined procedural irregularities and are difficult to prove, except in egregious cases. A few courts have vacated awards based on review of an arbitrator’s “manifest disregard of the law,” but federal circuits remain split as to whether that constitutes valid basis for independent review. However, appellate review under the American Arbitration Association's (AAA) recent optional rules is now available. The rules provide parties with a streamlined, standardized review of arbitral awards. AAA maintains this appellate rubric remains consistent with the objective of an expedited, cost effective and just arbitration process. An appellate arbitral panel applies a standard of review more expansive than that allowed by existing federal and state law in vacating awards. This process was really developed for large, complex cases where parties heavily value the ability to appeal. Parties may use these rules with agreement by contract or stipulation. Appeals are only permitted on the grounds that the underlying award is based on errors of law that are material, prejudicial or is made on clearly erroneous determinations of fact. Generally, AAA appeals will be determined upon the written documents submitted by the parties, with no oral argument, and completed in about three months. Interestingly, the parties may apply the rules whether or not the underlying award was conducted pursuant to AAA or International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) rules. See rules here-- http://bit.ly/1cDPGXy

U.S. Supreme Court Ends Delaware Chancery Arbitration Program

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in a case regarding a Delaware arbitration program where sitting judges heard corporate disputes in secret. The Court declined to review lower court decisions holding the program unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds because proceedings weren't open to the public. The confidential arbitration program was adopted in 2009 to further the state's business-friendly reputation. Companies often choose to incorporate in Delaware because of its favorable corporate legal climate. Businesses like arbitration because it can be faster and less expensive than court and takes place behind closed doors. The Delaware program was run through the state's Court of Chancery, where judges are known for their expertise in corporate disputes. Judges presided over the proceedings instead of private arbitrators, so long as a corporate litigants were willing to pay a $12,000 filing fee and $6,000 a day in arbitration costs. Business groups supporting the program reportedly said confidentiality was a time-honored and common sense aspect of arbitration that allowed companies to protect trade secrets and sensitive financial information. Critics said corporations shouldn't be able to pay for the services of a judge in secret. The Delaware Coalition for Open Government, a public-interest group, sued to challenge the program, saying that the public should have access to the arbitrations because they essentially were civil-court proceedings, conducted in a state courthouse with state resources. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held allowing access to the proceedings would give stockholders and the public a better understanding of how the state resolves business disputes. Although the lower court rulings didn’t preclude Delaware judges from conducting public arbitrations, the decisions effectively put a halt to the program. See full reports here-- http://on.wsj.com/Qc5OpT and http://buswk.co/NPeNv6

State's Confirdential Arbitration Program Violates First Amendment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ended Delaware’s confidential arbitration arbitration program, upholding a trial court decision that it violated the First Amendment. The program, established in 2009, was limited to business disputes of $1 million or more involving Delaware companies. Delaware is well known as a friendly state of incorporation for public companies and its Chancery Court specializes in business disputes. The state Legislature wanted cost effective means of resolving these disputes in light of growing private confidential arbitration with streamlined proceedings, like AAA and JAMS. Interestingly, the disputes were arbitrated by Delaware’s own judges, knowledgeable in adjudicating corporate law matters. Deliberations and resolution were confidential. Delaware charged $6,000 a day with a $12,000 filing fee, generating revenue for the state. Those outside of Delaware contended the rules moved important business disputes into private, perhaps to the detriment of shareholders and other stakeholders in the corporation. However, reportedly, this experiment also had strong proponents. They argued that judges regularly participate in mediation. Moreover, parties could agree to arbitrate their disputes without these judges. Delaware's need to compete, they argued, made arbitration a natural extension of its corporate law expertise. The Delaware Coalition for Open Government sued in federal court, claiming that the arbitration statute was unconstitutional. A lower court struck down the statute in 2012 holding that these arbitration cases were essentially confidential civil trials since the judges, place and proceedings were the same. The appellate court applied an experience and logic test, finding that these proceedings had traditionally been open to the public, and should remain open, even if called arbitration. The lone dissenter in a 2-1 decision stated that the Court of Chancery "may not be able to compete with the new arbitration systems being set up in other states and countries.” Apparently, less than a dozen cases were actually decided under the program. See stories here-- http://nyti.ms/I8sfs9 and http://on.wsj.com/163Rl3r