In a high-stakes legal duel, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a verdict on Monday, choosing to sidestep a pivotal debate on the viability of arbitration clauses. The central issue revolved around whether an arbitration agreement, tasking arbitrators with determining their own jurisdiction, can be overridden by a carveout. The decision keeps intact a Ninth Circuit ruling that rejected arbitration in a regulatory showdown concerning a Saipan casino.
Justices Reject Saipan Casino Arbitration Case : Imperial Pacific’s Battle Cry
Imperial Pacific International LLC had thrust itself into the judicial arena, asserting that a cloud of “significant uncertainty” loomed over federal appeals courts. Their argument sought resolution on whether arbitration agreements, specifically assigning arbitrators the task of defining the dispute’s proper forum, could be undermined by carveouts within the clause.
Ninth Circuit’s High-Stakes Reversal
Last summer, the Ninth Circuit jolted the legal landscape, overturning an order that permitted Imperial Pacific to arbitrate its force majeure defense. The crux of the matter was a licensing dispute with a local regulator. The Ninth Circuit contended that the arbitration clause in question explicitly excluded disputes of this nature.
Justices Reject Saipan Casino Arbitration Case : Imperial Pacific’s Dual Quandary
Imperial Pacific vehemently protested the Ninth Circuit’s intrusion into the question of arbitrability. Despite contractual provisions stipulating that an arbitrator should determine the proper venue, the circuit court weighed in on the matter. The casino developer further contended that their petition raised a second unresolved question: whether an arbitration agreement’s delegation of arbitrability to the arbitrator gets negated if the agreement allows, rather than mandates, arbitration.
Unmasking the Carveout Mystery
In a clandestine move, the Ninth Circuit panel, through an unpublished memorandum disposition, clarified that the casino license agreement between Imperial Pacific and the Commonwealth Casino Commission had a carveout. This exclusion pertained to issues surrounding the revocation or suspension of the license.
Justices Reject Saipan Casino Arbitration Case : Force Majeure Defense Unleashed
Imperial Pacific’s legal arsenal included a force majeure defense, a crucial element in the dispute. This defense, rooted in clauses that absolve businesses of obligations during unforeseen events, was unleashed due to the Commonwealth Casino Commission’s attempt to revoke the license. The commission’s move came in the wake of Imperial Pacific’s failure to pay the $15 million annual license fee in 2020 and additional fees.
Imperial Pacific’s Tale of Woes
The saga unfolded with Imperial Pacific citing a cascade of unforeseen events: the COVID-19 pandemic, destructive typhoons, damage to the casino construction site, and abrupt changes in federal immigration and labor laws. The force majeure defense underscored the company’s plea that it was financially incapacitated due to events beyond its control.
Justices Reject Saipan Casino Arbitration Case : Backers’ $3 Billion Pledge
Imperial Pacific’s grand venture, backed by Chinese investors committing over $3 billion in 2014, was fraught with hurdles. Natural disasters, policy proclamations, and the global pandemic wreaked havoc on the casino and hotel complex project, bringing the promised investment to a standstill.
Acknowledgment Amidst Adversity
Facing financial hardships, Imperial Pacific pointed to the acknowledgment by the governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The governor conceded that force majeure events had hindered Imperial Pacific’s ability to pay. As a concession, the license agreement was amended, affording the company more time to meet its financial obligations.
Justices Reject Saipan Casino Arbitration Case : Tourist Haven in the Crosshairs
The Northern Mariana Islands, a magnet for Asian tourists, particularly from China, found itself at the center of this legal maelstrom. Saipan, the largest island in the chain, witnessed a project of monumental proportions grappling with unforeseen challenges.
Pandemic Fallout and Financial Freefall
The pandemic’s onslaught left Imperial Pacific’s operations in disarray, causing revenues to plummet from $412 million in 2018 to a mere $3.1 million in 2020. The financial turmoil rendered Imperial Pacific unable to meet its contractual obligations under the license agreement.
Justices Reject Saipan Casino Arbitration Case : Legal Battleground Unveiled
Imperial Pacific International, with legal representation from Xiaosheng Huang of Law Huang International Ltd., Michael Chen, and Michael B. McCollum, now faces an uphill battle in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision. On the opposing side, the Commonwealth Casino Commission is represented by Jonathan Robert Glass Jr. of the CNMI Office of the Attorney General.
