http://loreelawfirm.com/blog/arbitration-nuts-bolts-new-york-court-of-appeals-says-the-submission-defines-the-scope-of-the-panels-authority Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:49:33 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://loreelawfirm.com/blog/arbitration-nuts-bolts-new-york-court-of-appeals-says-the-submission-defines-the-scope-of-the-panels-authority/comment-page-1#comment-6842 Stolt-Nielsen Oral Argument Analysis: Part II | Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:49:10 +0000 http://loreelawfirm.com/blog/?p=1670#comment-6842 [...] The answer depends in large part on the scope of the parties’ submission to arbitration:  What did the parties empower the arbitrators to decide when they entered into their agreement requesting the arbitrators to determine whether the arbitration agreements permitted or precluded class arbitration?   As we explained in a recent Nuts & Bolts feature, “[t]he scope of the agreement to arbitrate tells us only what must be submitted to arbitration.  It is the submission itself that ‘serves not only to define, but to circumscribe the authority of the arbitrators.’ Ottley v. Schwartzberg, 819 F.2d 373, 376 (2d Cir. 1987) (here).”   (A copy of our Nuts & Bolts post is here.)  [...] [...] The answer depends in large part on the scope of the parties’ submission to arbitration:  What did the parties empower the arbitrators to decide when they entered into their agreement requesting the arbitrators to determine whether the arbitration agreements permitted or precluded class arbitration?   As we explained in a recent Nuts & Bolts feature, “[t]he scope of the agreement to arbitrate tells us only what must be submitted to arbitration.  It is the submission itself that ‘serves not only to define, but to circumscribe the authority of the arbitrators.’ Ottley v. Schwartzberg, 819 F.2d 373, 376 (2d Cir. 1987) (here).”   (A copy of our Nuts & Bolts post is here.)  [...]

]]> http://loreelawfirm.com/blog/arbitration-nuts-bolts-new-york-court-of-appeals-says-the-submission-defines-the-scope-of-the-panels-authority/comment-page-1#comment-5602 Global Arbitration Review Publishes Article on Hansen v. Everlast and Quotes Philip J. Loree Jr. | Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:49:38 +0000 http://loreelawfirm.com/blog/?p=1670#comment-5602 [...] Readers may recall our recent post on the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Re Joan Hansen & Co v. Everlast World’s Boxing Headquarters Corp., ___ N.Y.3d ___, slip op. (Oct. 15, 2009), a case which demonstrates how important the parties’ submission is in determining arbitral authority.  The Court held that, after an award, a party cannot reopen an arbitration proceeding to request that the arbitrators decide an issue that had not previously been submitted to the arbitrators.  A copy of our post is here.   [...] [...] Readers may recall our recent post on the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Re Joan Hansen & Co v. Everlast World’s Boxing Headquarters Corp., ___ N.Y.3d ___, slip op. (Oct. 15, 2009), a case which demonstrates how important the parties’ submission is in determining arbitral authority.  The Court held that, after an award, a party cannot reopen an arbitration proceeding to request that the arbitrators decide an issue that had not previously been submitted to the arbitrators.  A copy of our post is here.   [...]

]]>