in advance, or if they are unaware of the facts but the relationship is trivial.” Commonwealth Corp., 393 U.S. at 150 (White and Marshall, JJ., concurring). The principal tenet of the courts of appeals’ test is that mere appearance of bias, without more, will not be sufficient to vacate the award. Rather, the challenging party must prove specific facts indicating evident partiality. See Toyota of Berkeley, supra (listing various courts of appeals’ standards for evident partiality). Some of the facts indicating partiality include pecuniary interest, familial relationship, and existence of an adversarial relationship. See, Commonwealth Corp., supra (intimating that any pecuniary interest casts doubt on the arbitrator’s impartiality); Morelite Const., s , 628 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (<HOLDING>). One problem with a strict application of the
holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness holding that arbitrators failure to disclose his relationship with an employee and witness for the plaintiff without specific proof of bias did not show evident partiality holding that evidence failed to show that the state violated brady and giglio by failing to timely disclose impeachment evidence regarding an alleged plea deal when the defendant failed to show that there was a deal between the state and witness in which witness received consideration for his testimony at the defendants trial holding that arbitrators failure to disclose his prior business dealings with defendant some twenty years earlier did not amount to misconduct holding that arbitrators failure to disclose that his law partners brother was the expert witness attorney did not show evident partiality because the relationship was trivial