this time here certain underwriters and lloyd's and versus the insurance company things mr compas did not omitted disclosing when he had at least sufficient and a number of opportunities to do so we just opening and and were saying that's insufficient what we want to characterize it we're putting it under the impartiality look or we just opening the door for people who are admittedly affiliated with you know the side that asked them to to be the arbitrator help pick the neutral aren't we just opening the door for them to say well i don't have to say this stuff because the second circuit has said you know in certain underwriting well it doesn't matter if we don't disclose the stuff so that the other side can ask us about the nature of our affiliation because when it comes right down to it that's going to be insufficient to disqualify me you are one of the thing that i think vetting conflicts and giving parties an opportunity to waive an objection to an arbitrator and in most cases the arbitrator is a neutral arbitrator this is a tri reinsurance agreement that we're talking about here and the law in new york and the law and other federal circuits as we started in other cases is that there is a presumption in this type of instance that the party appointed arbitrator's are don't have to be impartial i understand that but i understood judge knowles question to be on a completely different subject and that is if a person  what is the consequence of of non disclosure well i think and if and if there's no consequence of non disclosure then why do you have a real advantage by just saying  i don't know these people i never saw them before in my life you're out of the the consequence of non disclosure is i mean there are there are reputational consequences for you you were talking each party and the usual case there is that if if you look at the arbitrator well of occasions and if there are met then everything is ok these were disclosures that were made by all three operators including the neutral at the outset not the how to treat when these or when these disclosures were made because it is only when these when the two party arbitrators are appointed that they get together to decide who the neutral will be so basically the disclosure is made to the opposite party and your in your truck you you were for to waiver a waiver of conflict and presumably you can't decide whether the way the conflict unless you know whether there is one and what the nature of it is and is that the purpose of the disclosure requirements i know that but that is the purpose of the disclosure apartment as it applies to neutral and that's all the cases that deal  why do you have it in the context of party well that is something i think that has arisen in practice but it doesn't necessarily i might quite sure that i see it as a colleagues asked about here there there didn't have to be complete impartiality but the agreements that the arbitrator had to be disinterested which even on its most general definition it's no financial stake no control as i understand the facts as they ultimately came out of the auditor's report i see a least employees and got technical services from venture so ventures c e o compo says the arbitrator without disclosing that his business gets gets business from my ca namely the leasing of employees and technical services that doesn't sound disinterested to me what am i missing well it's disinterested in the outcome of the arbitration you know there's a difference between you know well it is delicious i ca is if an adverse ruling to i ca could at some levels affect the business relationship between i c a and venture in terms of the the relationship itself to keep we have to keep in mind that the no relationship whatsoever between these entities and that seems not to be supported by the record he may not have is that i see a secretary treasurer  if i understand it at least through two thousand and six sixteen served as ventures chief financial officer so basically compos would be assessing the credibility of his own chief financial officer and there seems to be something in the precedent about these three party arbiter or these three arbitrator panels that suggest that when the neutral is picked he's entitled to know what the relationship of the other arbitrators to the parties are some of course if a union picks its official to be its arbitrator the third party knows that he's got that interest here as i understood the so called neutral arbitrator did not know that rios was venture c f o and that much of a relationship not that there was no relationship i'm asking you why that wasn't a matter that even though you could have been affiliated arbitrator should have been disclosed i mean i think the issue of bias i mean i was speaking for myself personally i have no problems with affiliation my problem is with the non disclosure and if we agree with you we are essentially acceding to non disclosure because as judge broderick pointed out in his decision there were numerous opportunities for compost to disclose affiliations there and there were a tragedy as pointed out there are reasons for doing that that will assume this person is affiliated sorry is aligned with you in some way that's why you picked him or her but let the let the parties and the other perpetrators know what those affiliations  decide on the basis and there's nothing in the record though that shows that that made any difference and that's not evident partiality that's exceeding powers if anything and i don't know that there's just no evidence i'm certainly true in the context of the neutral where there is an expectation of impartiality when you when you get to the party appointed arbitrator situation you don't have expectations of impartiality here we get expectations of just interested in this but there's no there's no showing in the record that there are that there that the arbitrator had but interest in the outcome i mean he me clarify a few things on that of who knows if you know that they had any affiliation seems somewhat disingenuous but it's not just ingenuous when you consider that whatever these issue with the with this sort of thing really attorney down to isn't really is there any prejudice what is the what is the premise for having discovery is it your person pick a neutral what is the premise why have this discovery at all and i mean the purpose i mean why is it conducted is it required by the rules are required by the contract it's not in this case a star of the sort of logic of your position is that the only legitimate question that could be asked in the disclosure process is do you have a financial interest in the outcome of this of attrition you know i disagree with  create a record that the neutral arbitrator can consult in deciding what weight to give the counsel that the neutral is receiving from this party or betrayer or the other and that and you well you know if there would have to be some some some indication to i'm sure that if i'd known this i'm well the neutral didn't know about about these allegations when they were made later because it was it was an interpretation of the contract you know that happened to be another factor i mean that's so you have to look at all this or in any of this is you know under the f a a we're probably not vacating an award and you know  thank you you've reserved tha please the court timothy stalker for the underwriters involved in this matter we believe that judge broderick applied the proper a standard under the i've been involved in reinsurance arbitrations longer than i want to admit but at least thirty years as counsel as in house counsel and as a panel member either as an arbiter as a party appointed that disclosure is made for one's personal reputation and honor or whether it is something that is required by contract or by governing rules if there are any governing it is is just required the contract which requires disinterested party members of the panel it is required by industry custom and practice it's required by the arias rules it's required by the  it's required in our industry the contract states governed by the arias rules does not it does not however at the very beginning of this matter at the organizational meeting i ca's counsel when he commenced  questioning of the panel members stated and this is in our brief stated the disinterest that like and i'm paraphrasing a but disinterested as contained in the is is profound and that seems to be the kind of case that judge broderick was relying upon in his opinion was we're talking about something something different we're talking about people who will probably advocate inside the the robing room as they they do advocate both sides avocate however however they're also part of the overall process you to come to a a reasonable result in other words what i'm what i'm trying to saying both sides of the kate and sometimes one side advocates for the other side on a point but  point a party advocate arbitrator if you will in this case it doesn't because that person doesn't become the advocate for the entire case it becomes part of a panel to reach a reason award so i believe we alluded to the floor sense case where is you're just not merely an advocate you're part of the the process to come to be reasonable and i think will result on the issues see but but once the award was rendered your honor the panel became functus officio it was no longer in existence so there was no one to come back and say we now have the power to do all roles played by mr rios had been disclosed that would have afforded a particular argument that would have made this outcome unlikely as i understand your adversary it's that those facts are un to late get to the issues that had to be decided and that's why give us really no farm here from the nondisclosure tell us why we shouldn't agree with that let me start with this because at the organizational i asked him what his relationship was with i c i before the panel before the panel was constituted he said nothing he didn't know other than something ten years prior to the organizational meeting he had no contact with i morley i would assert home on here we have to make i probably would not have agree to constitute the panel we would have had we would have gotten a call at that point in time i don't know and i can't find it in the contract could totally understand all of that but if you say i object in the arbitrator to whom you object are of whom you objects as well sorry i'm still stand here and on the side that has has appointed that arbitrator and that means that the word disinterested is something entailed something more than having an interest in the outcome of the arbitration it's more than the the interest  interest in the outcome correct here it's more than that are correct because you see it everyone who's participating in these arbitrations people often have a lifetime of experience that's is arbitrators and they've done business with this one and that when they've done business with everybody they've reinsured everybody and they've ceded to everybody everybody is is everybody has existing relationships and so the term is interested probably means something more a lot more now than the fact that that and that there or prior and even current business relationship for and because because we want to avoid situations like this when you find out after the fact of these relationships that's why you encourage you require disclosure  order to to move forward with the the arbitration program would we look to find what the meaning is of the word disinterested and find support for your view that it is something other than having something other than just having an interest in the in the financial outcome of the arbitration i think that i think that to some degree commonwealth codings provides some and some guidance along with some of the these decisions that have come out of the second circuit such as such as scandinavian or e it doesn't adjust it doesn't address it directly but i think they give some guidance as to what disinterested should be  occur but there was a process and yes your honor there was a problem i agree that i did i didn't beat in the sense i just but but the process is this according to the obvious case in the second circuit and i have the site on me right now but it's  easy to find the yeah i have to if you have an objection to the composition of the panel you got to make it at the time when there is an award that's that's that's what the rules seem very efficient to you it seems very efficient i think your honor because it so it may turn out that the person who would have objected to that to the parents composition may have the being the winner and it goes away and that's that's that's the procedur new york you can do it's different procedure you can do but you can't do it you're in you're here you're your adversary said this would be possible to go back and ask the panel if if knowing what is now known it would come to the same conclusion is that sure and it is part of the custom of the industry for these arbitrations in which case i think you've conceded that that the custom of the industry in these arbitrary shoes has a role well i with the kennel the contract doesn't say anything that's right you know and we're talking about it as a doctrine that does impact this arbitration and and the permissible procedures associated with it and since it's not in the contract and since both counsel believe that it's it is it is a doctrine that with or without exceptions would govern this this disclose matters that might make you interested or even partial i guess the question here is in light of this custom and precedent within the industry how can you justify that you not only can pick an interested part an interested arbitrator but you could falsely represent that he's not interested which is what i understand the the other side to be saying happened here your client didn't say yeah i've had business dealings with the party in interest instead he the allegation is falsely denied  challenging here but what what we are saying is that you know and if you if let's assume as you said that there was a disclosure to have been disclosure everybody knew about all the stuff and let's say that mr stalker is suggesting is is that disinterested in this is the same thing as impartiality it's not and even the arias rules which don't apply but even here use rule say that number of various i mean those rules are out there maybe there are some evidence of of of of of of something but it was my understanding on this circuit and particularly in scandinavian regions is that you know all these whatever time he ever spent out near a zone or is as a matter of you know there's no evidence and record one way or the other on it but i you know if he or he has thirty some interest that is on the record and this is not his main interest so he's not spending a lot of time over there and it's not maybe that he didn't know i don't know but the bigger question here is was he or was he not interested in the outcome of the that there has been fraud when people are induced to invest their money on false representations whether or not they've made a penny or lost a penny so they had a right to the the truth in making their decision i mean by analogy here to use the most obvious example of partial arbitrators if some if a union picked an arbitrator and  examination said have you ever held an office in this union and the fellow said no and it turned out that he had been in fights president of the union five years before had no relations now but he had yet served as an officer of the union basically enforcing disclosure requirements with section twenty four even though you know then you're going to you're going to be an endless slew of non disclosure cases  usually who has many relationships of long period of time and some some of them are officers or happen offices in very large companies and don't know the relationships so it's also an answer and you know i'm i work for round one insurance and i may have had something to do with these people over the years but wouldn't it be odd if you said i don't know whether we should office space with them court of appeal says it says it's an important right so you know it's if if if it's you know so you're basically if it's him and it's and it's not subject to the other the only it's only subject to the violation of the of the arbitrator qualifications and a grievance and you know i guess in any case where there was prejudice if you had fraud or something you know that that would provide a basis for for