Comments on: More on Stolt-Nielsen: Shouldn’t the Supreme Court Also Grant Certiorari in the American Express Merchants’ Litigation?

By: Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp.: What are the Implications for Reinsurance Arbitration? | Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum

Wed, 05 May 2010 21:07:28 +0000

[...] are silent on that subject? You can read our prior posts on Stolt-Nielsen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. (Certain of these posts [...]

By: Stolt-Nielsen Oral Argument Analysis: Part II | Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:48:51 +0000

[...] including a series of guest-post articles for the Disputing blog. (Posts available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, [...]

By: United States Supreme Court Update: Union Pacific and Granite Rock Labor Arbitration Cases | Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:31:13 +0000

[...] be imposed on parties whose contracts are silent on that point. (Posts available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, [...]

By: Update on Federal Arbitration Act Cases Pending in the United States Supreme Court | Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:07:23 +0000

[...] be imposed on parties whose contracts are silent on that point. (Posts available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and [...]

By: GUEST POST: Class and Consolidated Arbitration Under the Federal Arbitration Act: What Issues Will The United States Supreme Court Confront in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. V. Animalfeeds Int’l Co.? « Disputing

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:23:04 +0000

[...] The Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum is delighted to guest post once again on Karl Bayer’s and Victoria VanBuren’s wonderful ADR blog, Disputing. Because Victoria and I have both written fairly extensively about Hall Street Assoc. v. Mattel, Inc, 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008), and about two of the most frequently cited cases construing Hall Street’s dictum on manifest disregard of the law — Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Bacon, 562 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2009) and 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) – and because the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Stolt-Nielsen, we thought that our joint-readership might appreciate an analysis of the issues that the Supreme Court will likely address – or at least face — in Stolt-Nielsen. That’s what we have set out to do in this four-part guest post. (Victoria’s posts on Hall Street and manifest disregard of the law are here, here, and here and mine are here, here, and here.) [...]

By: Feeney v. Dell Inc.: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Says Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement Governed by the Federal Arbitration Act Violates Massachusetts Public Policy | Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:08:08 +0000

[...] policy if it decides to grant certiorari in the American Express Merchants’ Litigation (blogged here). Today we examine a case in which the question was whether a state policy in favor of consumer [...]