"In particular, we have declined to vacate 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'." [Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Tatung Co., 379 F.3d 24, 28 (2d Cri. 2004)].
ובמקום אחר נפסק, תוך התייחסות למוסד הבוררות ולרציונאליים העומדים בבסיסו:
"Other courts have invoked the waiver principle under circumstances in which a complaining party either knew or should have known of the facts indicating partiality of an arbitrator but failed to raise an objection prior to the arbitration decision. See, e.g., JCI Communications, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 103, 324 F.3d 42, 52 (1st Cir. 2003) (holding that a party "which was put on notice of the risk when it signed the contract [and] chose not to inquire about the backgrounds of the Committee members either before or during the hearing" waived the right to challenge the decision based on evident partiality); Kiernan v. Piper Jaffray Cos., Inc., 137 F.3d 588, 593 (8th Cir. 1998) ("While they did not have full knowledge of all the relationships to which they now object, they did have concerns about [the arbitrator's] partiality and yet chose to have her remain on the panel rather than spend time and money investigating further until losing the arbitration.").
Holding that the waiver doctrine applies where a party to an arbitration has constructive knowledge of a potential conflict but fails to timely object is the better approach in light of our policy favoring the finality of arbitration awards. There is no charge or evidence of actual bias and no indication that the arbitration award was anything but fair. A rule that places the burden on parties to obtain disclosure statements from arbitrators who were initially party-appointed but later agree to act neutrally is consistent with our policy favoring the finality of arbitration awards. It is also consistent with our policy favoring arbitration as a speedy and cost-effective means of resolving disputes. See Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Phoenix Mailers Union Local 752, 989 F.2d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 1993)" [Fid. Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp., 386 F. 3d 1306, 1313 (9th Cir. 2004)].