A federal district court in New York held that where an arbitration agreement provides that a dispute shall be referred to a "College of Arbiters," the phrase is referring to a generic arbitral panel, not to a specific arbitral panel bearing that name.

In Magi XXI, Inc. v. Stato Della Citta Del Vaticano, No. 07-CV-02898, 2008 WL 3895915 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2008), Magi entered into a sub-license contract with Second Renaissance, LLC (SR), which granted Magi rights to market and sell products inspired by items in the Vatican Library collection.  

The contract contained an arbitration agreement, which provided that any "dispute shall be referred to a College of Arbiters in the Sovereign State of Vatican City."  The agreement further explained the process for selecting the three arbiters that would compose the "College of Arbiters."  

After a dispute arose between the parties, Magi sued SR, and SR moved to compel arbitration.  Magi opposed, arguing that arbitration in the Vatican pursuant to the contract would be "illusionary" because the "College of Arbiters" does not exist.

The Court rejected Magi’s argument, holding that it was based on a misreading of the language of the contract.  The Court determined that "the term ‘College of Arbiters’ connotes a generic body, of which there can be more than one…. Simply put, the ‘College of Arbiters’ is nothing more than the label used by the parties themselves to describe the arbitral panel…. It is a term of art between the contracting parties."

Furthermore, the Court noted the contract itself defined the composition of the College of Arbiters.  The contract explained the process of selecting the three arbiters that would compose the panel: two party-selected arbiters and a third, "neutral" arbiter.  Consequently, the Court held that the arbitration agreement was not illusory at all; rather, it was a valid agreement to arbitrate before a viable arbitration panel.

Accordingly, the Court granted SR’s motion to compel arbitration before a College of Arbiters.