Partiality. Petitioner first contends that the Awards should be vacated because the Arbitrator exhibited evident partiality toward MHR. Pet. Mem. at 23–29, ECF No. 15. Petitioner’s basis for this claim is that the Arbitrator was invited to serve as an arbitrator in a separate proceeding where MHR’s attorney was also serving as lead counsel, that MHR’s counsel “engineer[ed] [this] opportunity,” and that the Arbitrator did not adequately disclose the “key facts and documents relating to this opportunity.” Id. at 1. Xxxxxxxxxx also contends that several of the Arbitrator’s procedural and substantive rulings against him are further evidence of her bias. Id. at 26–28. The FAA provides that district courts may vacate an arbitral award where the arbitrator demonstrated evident partiality. Scandinavian Reins., 668 F.3d at 72. Evident partiality may be found only “where a reasonable person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration.” Id. at 64 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Adverse rulings alone rarely evidence partiality. Id. at 75. An arbitrator’s failure to disclose a relationship or interest that is strongly suggestive of bias in favor of one of the parties can provide a basis for the evident partiality standard to be met. LGC Holdings, Inc. v. Xxxxxx Xxxxx Diamonds, 238 F. Supp. 3d 452, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). However, the Second Circuit “[has] not been quick to set aside the results of an arbitration because of an arbitrator’s alleged failure to disclose information.” Lucent Techs. Inc., v. Tatung Co., 379 F.3d 24, 28 (2d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). And, the Second Circuit has cautioned courts against vacating awards “because of undisclosed relationships where the complaining party should have known of the relationship . . . or could have learned of the relationship just as easily before or during the arbitration rather than after it lost its case.” Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). Similarly, courts will not vacate awards where “a party has knowledge of facts possibly indicating [arbitrator] bias or partiality” but nevertheless chooses to “remain silent and later object to the award of the arbitrators on that ground.” LCG Holdings, 238 F. Supp. 3d at 467–69 (citation omitted) (finding petitioners had waived partiality objection where the arbitrator had disclosed enough to put them on “inquiry notice” of relationships with business partners, yet petitioners had failed to further investigate or object to the i...
