On September 1, 2009 Disputing published Part IVA of our four-part guest post on 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). In Part IVA (here) we considered whether the question in Stolt-Nielsen was one for the court or the arbitrators to decide, and predicted that at least five Justices of the United States Supreme Court will hold that the court must decide it. If we are correct, then the Supreme Court will consider on a de novo basis whether the arbitration panel had the authority to impose class arbitration on the Stolt-Nielsen parties.
Today, Disputing published Part IVB of our guest post (here) in which we consider how the Supreme Court might rule on the merits of the question. We believe that at least five Justices will rule that the arbitrators should not, in the face of the agreements’ silence, have imposed class arbitration where, as here, there is no basis in the Federal Arbitration Act, New York state law or federal maritime law for implying consent to class arbitration.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Stolt-Nielsen may have some important ramifications for both commercial and consumer arbitration. So for advance coverage, tune into Disputing….
Tags: Arbitrability, Class Arbitration, Consolidated Arbitration, Disputing, Federal Arbitration Act, Stolt Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int'l Corp., United States Supreme Court
[…] contracts are silent on that point. (Posts available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.) Once the oral argument transcript is available, and we have time to digest it, we […]