Authority Of Arbitrators | Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum

Archive for the ‘Authority of Arbitrators’ Category

Professor Aaron Bruhl’s Analysis of Rent-A-Center, West v. Jackson (No. 09-497)

February 24th, 2010 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

Professor Aaron Bruhl, an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center, recently published in PrawfsBlawg a thought-provoking and insightful article on Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson (No. 09-497). (Post here) Regular readers no doubt remember that the United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Rent-A-Center, and will be hearing argument on April 26, 2010. (See our prior posts here and here).

Professor Bruhl points out that, in addition to being of interest to those practicing employment, consumer or plain old arbitration law, Rent-A-Center “is just as interesting for those who study federal courts and judicial politics.” He reminds us that one of the few remaining “safety valves” for challenging arbitration agreements is unconscionability:

In the last few years, as other routes for challenging arbitration have been closed off, unconscionability has become a surprisingly common and surprisingly effective way of attacking arbitration agreements. The challenges do not attack arbitration per se – federal law favors arbitration – but instead target various aspects of a particular arbitration process: a given clause might forbid class arbitrations, bar punitive damages or otherwise restrict remedies, sharply curtail discovery, require a consumer to pay hefty arbitrator’s fees, etc. There have been many cases on these topics in recent years, and a good number of them sustain the challenge to the arbitration clause.

He notes that the United States Supreme Court has consistently denied certiorari in cases where lower courts have invalidated arbitration agreements on state-law unconscionability grounds and the question is whether the invalidation offended the Federal Arbitration Act. He suspects “the Court has avoided these cases because it feels ill-equipped to resolve whether a lower court is discriminating against arbitration:”

First, unconscionability analysis often requires a fact-intensive inquiry. Second, and more important, determining whether a lower court is using unconscionability differently when it comes to arbitration requires an engagement with the details of state law and a comparison of lots of prior unconscionability cases. Third, and maybe most important of all, a holding that the lower court is applying unconscionability unfairly, especially when the lower court says it is applying the same analysis it applies elsewhere, carries with it some serious expressive baggage. Essentially, it requires the Supreme Court to say that the lower court is being dishonest. That happens, but when it does so, it is a big deal (think cases like Bush v. Gore or the cases from the 50s/60s rejecting supposed procedural defaults in the state courts).

But the Court granted certiorari in Rent-A-Center, a case involving not the merits of a state law unconscionability challenge, but the question who gets to decide unconscionability when the parties clearly and unmistakably submit it to the arbitrators. Professor Bruhl believes certiorari was granted because addressing the “who” question, and resolving it in favor of arbitration, will cleanly dispose of the unconscionability problem from the standpoint of the federal courts, at least in cases where the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability:

That doesn’t require diving into the weeds of state law and the record. If the Court assigns the issue to the arbitrator, that will be a very easy rule to monitor for compliance (unlike deciding whether the lower court applied unconscionability correctly). All of those unconscionability cases out there will instantly become not wrong but irrelevant – because courts won’t be deciding the issue anymore. And it won’t matter whether some lower courts can be trusted to apply unconscionability correctly, because they will be cut out of the picture. Continue Reading »

SCOTUS Oral Argument in Jackson v. Rent-A-Center West, Inc. Set for April 26, 2010

February 17th, 2010 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Supreme Court No Comments »

The United States Supreme Court has set for April 26, 2010 oral argument in Jackson v. Rent-A-Center West, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, slip op. (9^th Cir. Sept. 9, 2009), petition for cert. granted Jan. 15, 2010 (No. 09-497) (oral argument calendar here). Jackson addresses the question who decides unconscionability of an arbitration agreement when the agreement clearly and unmistakably says arbitrators decide arbitrability. The Ninth Circuit said the court decides the question, but we think there is a reasonable chance the United States Supreme Court will reverse. We touched on some of the reasons why in prior posts, here and here.

We shall keep readers apprised of further developments as and when they occur. . . .

Stolt-Nielsen Oral Argument Analysis, Part V: Should Class or Consolidated Arbitration be Imposed if the Contract is Silent?

February 16th, 2010 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Practice and Procedure, United States Supreme Court No Comments »

I. Introduction

This is the final installment of our five-part series on the Stolt-Nielsen oral argument. It addresses the fourth issue identified in Part I (here): what the import of the agreements’ silence is or should be. It assumes the Court reaches the merits; as explained in Parts III and IV (here and here), the United States Supreme Court may take another “pass” on the question presented (the first pass was taken in Bazzle), and hold that the predicate for granting certiorari was not established because the arbitrators ruled that the agreement was not silent on class arbitration.

Part I identified two loose “coalitions” of Justices – the “Breyer Coalition” consisting of Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the “Roberts Coalition,” consisting of Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin G. Scalia and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. The Breyer Coalition appears to be leaning toward either taking a pass or affirming the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which upheld the arbitrators’ award imposing class arbitration, while the Roberts Coalition appears to be leaning toward reversal. We explore the import of the charter-party agreements’ silence on class arbitration from the standpoint of both coalitions. Continue Reading »

Ninth Circuit Approves Ex Parte Hearing Procedures in Reinsurance Case: United States Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Nat’l Ins. Co.

February 7th, 2010 Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Grounds for Vacatur, Practice and Procedure, Procedural Misconduct, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1 Comment »

I. Introduction

Back in January the Ninth Circuit decided United States Life Ins. Co. v. Superior National Ins. Co., ___ F.3d ___, slip op. (9^th Cir. Jan. 4, 2010), a Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(3) procedural misconduct decision that affords reinsurance and other arbitrators a good deal of leeway to devise and implement nontraditional procedures for resolving complex problems. The case centered around a rather unusual procedure the arbitrators ordered and implemented to determine whether the cedents improperly handled some 12,604 contested workers compensation claims. It also concerned the authority of arbitrators to interpret the scope of the submission and to award a disgorgement of investment income remedy in addition to pre-award interest. Continue Reading »

Stolt-Nielsen Oral Argument Analysis: Part IV

January 6th, 2010 Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Practice and Procedure, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

Introduction

Stolt-Nielsen turns on the allocation of power between courts and arbitrators. No matter how thoroughly and neatly you parse the issues, the question that repeatedly and continuously begs for an answer is: who decides? Answer that question as it relates to one issue and it pops up again in relation to the next.

Up until Bazzle the Supreme Court did an admirable job of delineating the bounds of arbitral versus judicial authority. The lines were blurred in Bazzle, where under the peculiar facts there was a question whether the agreement precluded class arbitration. (See our Disputing guest post here.) The question required interpretation of ambiguous contract language – a task arbitrators have both the authority and the competence to perform – so it was remanded to the arbitrators. The four-Justice plurality said the question was not one of arbitrability, but concerned the “kind” of arbitration to which the parties agreed.

But many of the lower courts — including the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — read Bazzle to mean that arbitrators have the authority under a broad arbitration agreement to determine whether the parties agreed to class arbitration when their agreements say nothing about class or consolidated arbitration. That is a very different question from whether an arbitration agreement precludes class arbitration, and it is not one that the parties in Stolt-Nielsen clearly and unmistakably submitted to the arbitrators.

Stolt-Nielsen presents the United States Supreme Court with a unique opportunity to draw a sharper and stronger line between the arbitrable and non-arbitrable in cases concerning class or consolidated arbitration. Whether or not the Court will seize it is an open question, because, as explained in Part III, AnimalFeeds has articulated a plausible argument that Stolt-Nielsen has not established the predicate for the Court’s grant of certiorari: that the parties’ agreements were silent on class arbitration. If at least five justices are satisfied with the (we believe, unsatisfactory) status quo concerning class arbitration, or otherwise believe that the best course is to allow class arbitration to continue (and even flourish), then AnimalFeed’s argument may provide an interpretive path for a ruling that the case is not properly before the Court.

Today we explain why accepting AnimaFeeds’ argument would contravene the letter and spirit of the Federal Arbitration Agreement, breed further litigation, and undermine confidence in arbitration as an effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism. More to the point, we discuss why and how the Court can reach the merits of Stolt-Nielsen consistently with how Stolt-Nielsen presented the question. Continue Reading »

Stolt-Nielsen Oral Argument Analysis: Part III

December 23rd, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, United States Supreme Court 2 Comments »

On December 9, 2009 the United States Supreme Court held oral argument in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. granted June 15, 2009 (No. 08-1198) (oral argument transcript here). Stolt-Nielsen concerns whether class or consolidated arbitration may be imposed on parties whose contracts are silent on that point, and we have written extensively on it, including an ongoing series of guest-post articles for our friend Karl Bayer’s Disputing blog. (Posts available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

On December 16, 2009 we posted Part II of our analysis of the oral argument (Parts I, here, Part II, here). In this Part III we focus on what transpired with respect to the second of four key interrelated issues raised at oral argument and identified in Part I: What exactly did the arbitrators decide? Continue Reading »

Interesting Article on Arbitrator Power to Retain Jurisdiction

December 17th, 2009 Association of Insurance and Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC), Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group, Grounds for Vacatur, functus officio No Comments »

On June 28, 2009 we published a post concerning an article we wrote for AIRROC Matters about KX Reinsurance Co. v. General Reinsurance Corp., 08 Civ. 7807 (SAS), 2008 WL 4904882 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2008) (Scheindlin, J.), where the court held that an arbitration panel exceeded its authority when, after resolving all the issues the parties submitted, it nevertheless retained jurisdiction. A copy of our post is here.

Around the time we published that post, my friend, colleague and fellow LinkedIn Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group member, Theresa Hajost, told me that she had an article in the works that would treat in a very comprehensive fashion the issue of arbitrator authority to retain jurisdiction. (For those of you who do not already know her, Theresa is a partner at the Washington, D.C. office of Halloran & Sage LLP, where she practices insurance and reinsurance litigation and arbitration.) I thought that was a great idea and told her so.

Theresa recently published the article, Does An Arbitrator’s Retention of Jurisdiction After The Issuance of a Final Award Subject That Award To Vacatur?, in ADR Choices (Volume I Issue 10) (published by DRI). We highly recommend it as it surveys and discusses cases from all over the country on the issue of an arbitrator’s authority to retain jurisdiction, organizes those cases into helpful categories and offers insightful comments on the subject. It is an excellent resource for anyone who is interested in arbitral power, or who is confronted with a scenario where there is a question concerning an arbitration panel’s authority to remain constituted post award. You can read the article using the link Halloran & Sage has kindly provided here.

Great job, Theresa!

Stolt-Nielsen Oral Argument Analysis: Part II

December 16th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, United States Supreme Court 3 Comments »

Introduction

On December 9, 2009 the United States Supreme Court held oral argument in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. granted June 15, 2009 (No. 08-1198) (oral argument transcript here). Stolt-Nielsen concerns whether class or consolidated arbitration may be imposed on parties whose contracts are silent on that point, and we have written extensively on it, including a series of guest-post articles for the Disputing blog. (Posts available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

Former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, a partner of the prestigious law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, and Chair of the firm’s Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Practice Group, represented the Stolt-Nielsen petitioners before the Court (Mr. Waxman’s bio is here). Georgetown University Law Center Professor Cornelia T.L. Pillard represented respondent AnimalFeeds. (Professor Pillard also represented the Bazzle respondents in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003)). Both attorneys did a very admirable job of presenting their cases on behalf of their clients.

On December 13, 2009 we posted Part I of our analysis of the oral argument (Part I here). In this Part II we focus on what transpired with respect to the first of the four key, interrelated issues raised by the Justices and identified in Part I: The scope of the submission and the corresponding scope of the arbitrators’ authority. We shall address the remaining three in one or more future posts. Continue Reading »

Stolt-Nielsen Oral Argument Analysis: Part I

December 13th, 2009 Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Practice and Procedure, United States Supreme Court 6 Comments »

On December 9, 2009 the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the one Federal Arbitration Act case it has agreed to review this Term: Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. granted June 15, 2009 (No. 08-1198) (oral argument transcript here). Stolt-Nielsen concerns whether class or consolidated arbitration may be imposed on parties whose contracts are silent on that point, and we have written extensively about the case, including a series of guest-post articles for the Disputing blog. (Posts available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

This multi-part post considers what transpired at oral argument and provides our take on it. Familiarity with the background facts is presumed and, if necessary, can be gleaned here, here, and here. Continue Reading »

Global Arbitration Review Publishes Article on Hansen v. Everlast and Quotes Philip J. Loree Jr.

November 3rd, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, New York Court of Appeals, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Uncategorized, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, functus officio No Comments »

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.

On November 2, 2009 Kyriaki Karadelis of the U.K.-based trade publication Global Arbitration Review (“GAR”) (website here) wrote what I thought was a concise and insightful article on the case. And we would have said that even if she had not quoted some of our comments in her article! But she did, and we’re flattered by that.

With Global Arbitration Review’s permission, and with the required copyright disclaimer, we have posted the article as a “Slide Share Presentation” in my LinkedIn profile, which you can view by clicking here. Also posted there (again with GAR’s permission and the required disclaimer) is a Global Arbitration Review Article on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. EMC National Life Co., ___ F.3d ___, ___ (2009) (Raggi, J.) (blogged here and here), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that an arbitration panel was authorized to award under the bad faith exception to the American Rule attorney and arbitrator fees to a ceding company in a case where the parties had agreed that “[e]ach party shall bear the expense of its own arbitrator. . . and related outside attorneys’ fees, and shall jointly and equally bear with the other party the expenses of the third arbitrator.” We reported on GAR’s article concerning ReliaStar case here, which also quotes some of our comments on that case.

We ask our readership to remember that GAR is a subscription-only publication and that it has copyrights in these posted materials. GAR has authorized us to post them online and distribute them for marketing purposes, but that authorization does not extend to others not similarly situated. Please do the right thing and respect GAR’s copyrights – GAR has to make a living just like the rest of us!