Green Tree Financial Corp. V. Bazzle | Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum

Posts Tagged ‘Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle’

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

July 20th, 2010 Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

Part V.C

A. Introduction

As was evident from Parts V.A and V.B (here and here), Stolt-Nielsen has dramatically changed the legal landscape on consolidated arbitration. In this Part V.C. we explore the practical and strategic implications of that change.

B. Reinsurers Will Likely Regain the Tactical Advantage They Had Pre-Bazzle

For the last several years since Bazzle, cedents and reinsurers have treated consolidation of arbitration proceedings largely as a given. Courts would usually delegate the consolidation question to the arbitrators, and, in turn, arbitrators would usually order consolidation. After a while, consolidation became something that the parties frequently agreed upon, because in most cases there was little or no point in opposing it. (See Part III, here.)

The advent of large, consolidated proceedings redounded mostly to the cedents’ benefit. In the consumer-class-arbitration context, the theme is usually the many against the one — the consumers versus the company. But in reinsurance arbitration the tables are turned, and the theme is usually the one against the many – the cedent versus the reinsurers participating in one or more treaties.

Consolidated arbitration allowed a cedent to, among other things, aggregate its claims against several reinsurers participating in a multi-year treaty program. Without consolidated arbitration the dollar amounts associated with each claim might be too small to warrant a serious collection effort. But the ability to aggregate ensured that even relatively small balances could be pursued.

Collections were fairly straightforward, and reinsurers who might otherwise have multiple chances before multiple panels to assert certain defenses were forced to make their arguments before a single arbitration panel. The ability of cedents to compel consolidated arbitration probably contributed to reinsurers settling certain claims that they might otherwise have disputed.

Now that courts may be the gatekeepers when a party demands consolidated arbitration, and now that the Supreme Court has imposed some fairly strict standards for establishing consent to class or consolidated arbitration, reinsurers probably have regained the tactical advantage. And the strategy adapted may well be of the “divide and conquer” variety – reinsurers may in appropriate cases force the cedent to commence multiple proceedings and, among other things, obtain multiple bites at the apple on their defenses before multiple panels. Continue Reading »

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

June 18th, 2010 Arbitrability, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Practice and Procedure, United States Supreme Court 5 Comments »

Part V.A

A. Introduction

In this Part V.A of our consolidated-reinsurance-arbitration series, we delve into Stolt-Nielsen’s legal implications on consolidated reinsurance-arbitration practice, focusing on how courts are likely to decide the allocation-of-power question: Who gets to decide whether the parties consented to consolidated arbitration? In Part V.B we shall examine Stolt-Nielsen’s other specific legal and practical implications, focusing on what a party will likely need to show to obtain consolidated arbitration and how frequently consolidated arbitration is likely to be granted after Stolt-Nielsen.

B. Who Gets to Decide Whether the Parties Consented to Consolidated Arbitration?

Readers will recall from Part III (here) that courts interpreted Bazzle as governing the allocation-of-power issue. Now that the Court has said Bazzle never commanded a majority on that issue, and that it remains open, courts must reconsider it not only in the class-, but in the consolidated-arbitration context.

Consolidated arbitrations, like class arbitrations, raise two types of questions: Common-dispute and party-consent questions. We think that courts will likely conclude that both are questions of arbitrability for the court to decide in the first instance, unless the parties clearly and unmistakably agree otherwise. Arbitrators may play a role in resolving contractual ambiguities identified by the court.

1. Who Gets to Decide Common-Dispute Questions?

All consolidated-arbitration questions concern whether at least one arbitration agreement encompasses not only disputes concerning one, but all other contracts at issue. We call this the “common-dispute” question.

In some consolidated-arbitration disputes the “common dispute” question is the only one presented. Suppose reinsurer R enters into two treaties with cedent C, Contracts A and B, each of which incept on the same date and are in force for one year. Contract A’s limits are $1 million per occurrence excess a $500,000 retention. Contract B has per occurrence limits of $2 million excess of $1.5 million. Both contain broad arbitration clauses under which the parties agreed to arbitrate “any dispute arising out of or relating to this contract.” Continue Reading »

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

June 8th, 2010 Arbitrability, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration, United States Supreme Court 6 Comments »

Part IV

A. Introduction

In Part I (here) we explained why the standard for challenging an award based on its outcome is important in reinsurance arbitration practice. And, after briefly reviewing pre-Stolt-Nielsen law on outcome-based standards of review, we explained how the Court has established for itself and the lower courts a fairly searching standard of review. Part II (here) explored the legal and practical implications of that standard of review.

Part III (here) turned to the other key area that will likely change because of Stolt-Nielsen — consolidated reinsurance-arbitration practice — and discussed the state of consolidation law pre-Stolt-Nielsen. This Part IV discusses Stolt-Nielsen’s rationale for finding that imposing class arbitration on parties whose agreements are silent on that point is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, and explores how the Court’s ruling may affect consolidated reinsurance-arbitration practice in general.

B. The Supreme Court’s Decides that Imposing Class Arbitration on Parties whose Contracts are Silent on that Score is Inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act

When we last left Stolt-Nielsen, the Court had determined that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by issuing an award that was based on their own notions of public policy gleaned from other arbitral decisions imposing class arbitration in the face of silence. When a court vacates an award it has to decide whether to remand the matter to the arbitrators, for Section 10(b) of the Federal Arbitration Act authorizes a court to “direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.” The Court decided not to remand, because “there can be only one possible outcome on the facts,” that is, where the parties’ contracts are undisputedly silent on class arbitration, save for the parties’ agreement to a broad arbitration clause. The Court then set about to explain why that was so. Continue Reading »

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

June 4th, 2010 Arbitrability, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Reinsurance Arbitration, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court 6 Comments »

Part III

A. Introduction

In Part I (here) we explained why the standard for challenging an award based on its outcome is important in reinsurance arbitration practice. And, after briefly reviewing pre-Stolt-Nielsen law on outcome-based standards of review, we explained how Stolt-Nielsen has established for the lower courts a fairly searching standard of review. Part II (here) explored the legal and practical implications of that standard of review.

This Part III turns to the other key area that will likely change because of Stolt-Nielsen: Consolidated reinsurance-arbitration practice.

As most reinsurance practitioners know, there is a brief history relevant to this subject and that will be the focus of this post. For to fully understand the implications of Stolt-Nielsen on consolidated reinsurance-arbitration practice, it is necessary to understand how the pre-Stolt-Nielsen practice evolved.

Parts IV (here) and V (here, here and here) will address how Stolt-Nielsen will likely change consolidated reinsurance-arbitration practice, and what the implications of those changes are to the industry. Continue Reading »

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

May 25th, 2010 Arbitrability, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Grounds for Vacatur, Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 6 Comments »

Part I

A. Introduction

Shortly before the United States Supreme Court decided Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., ___ U.S. ___, slip op. (April 27, 2010), we wrote about the implications the case might have on reinsurance arbitration practice. (See our post here.) But since then, you have not heard much from us, other than our brief report (here) about the Supreme Court vacating and remanding to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the American Express Merchants’ Litigation judgment for further consideration in light of Stolt-Nielsen. One — but by no means the only — reason is that after Stolt-Nielsen was decided, we wrote a comprehensive article on it, which will be published in a subscription-only publication in June.

But that article – while comprehensive in scope – is directed at folks interested in the Federal Arbitration Act in general, not necessarily those interested in reinsurance arbitration in particular. And that’s what we want to cover in this multi-part series: Stolt-Nielsen’s implications on reinsurance arbitration practice.

Stolt-Nielsen affects reinsurance arbitration in two very important ways. First, it has set a fairly liberal standard of review that now applies to commercial arbitration awards in cases where a party asserts that the arbitrators exceeded their powers under Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(4) because of the award’s outcome. That, as we shall see, has all sorts of implications for persons involved in reinsurance arbitrations.

Second, it has changed the rules applicable to consolidated-reinsurance-arbitration practice – or at least it requires a wholesale reevaluation of those rules. That, too, has a number of important implications for reinsurance-arbitration practice.

This Part I of the series explains why the standard for challenging an award based on its outcome is important in reinsurance arbitration practice. And, after briefly reviewing pre-Stolt-Nielsen law on outcome-based standards of review, it explains how Stolt-Nielsen has established for the lower courts a fairly searching standard of review. Part II (here) will delve into what the implications of that standard of review will likely be.

Part III (here) will provide the background necessary to understand how Stolt-Nielsen affects the law applicable to consolidated reinsurance arbitration. Part IV (here) will delve into the details of how Stolt-Nielsen changes – or at least requires reconsideration of – the legal status quo in this area. And Part V will discuss the implications of all of this.

We do not set out to discuss the background of Stolt-Nielsen in any detail or to provide a play-by-play of how the Court decided the case. If you are a regular reader you probably already know the background in detail, and our upcoming article does a pretty good job of mapping out the Court’s reasoning. Instead, we focus our attention on the aspects of the decision that are relevant to the two key subjects of discussion.

But before we delve into what Stolt-Nielsen has to say about the standard of review, we pause briefly to address why the standard of review applicable to an outcome-based challenge is so important in reinsurance and other forms of commercial arbitration. Continue Reading »

Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp.: What are the Implications for Reinsurance Arbitration?

April 18th, 2010 Arbitrability, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Reinsurance Arbitration, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

We have written extensively on Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., No. 08-1198, a case pending before the United States Supreme Court in which a decision is expected in the not too distant future. Stolt-Nielsen presents the question whether a court or arbitration panel may, consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, impose class arbitration on a party whose arbitration agreements are silent on that subject. The answer to that question will likely answer a related question that is of special concern to those involved in reinsurance arbitration: Can a panel or court impose consolidated arbitration on a party whose arbitration agreements 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 contain links to articles on Stolt-Nielsen we wrote for Karl Bayer’s Disputing blog.)

But those posts principally concern the legal issues raised by the case, discuss various ways it might be decided, and argue that the correct answer to the question is that a court or arbitration panel cannot, consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, impose class or consolidated arbitration in the face of silence. To date we have not discussed in any detail the practical implications that the case may have on reinsurance arbitration, if any. So today let’s look at what those implications may be. 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 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 »

Disputing Has Published Part II of our Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Co. Guest Post

August 10th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, General, Guest Posts 1 Comment »

Last week we announced that Disputing had published Part I 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) (post here). Today, Disputing published Part II, which discusses Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003), the case that provides the legal landscape against which the Supreme Court will decide Stolt-Nielsen. You can read Part II here. We expect Disputing will publish Part III later this week, with Part IV to follow.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Stolt-Nielsen may have some important ramifications for both commercial and consumer arbitration. And soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor may provide the swing vote in the case. So for advance coverage, tune into Disputing….

Posts Tagged ‘Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle’

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp.: What are the Implications for Reinsurance Arbitration?

Stolt-Nielsen Oral Argument Analysis: Part IV

Stolt-Nielsen Oral Argument Analysis: Part II

Stolt-Nielsen Oral Argument Analysis: Part I

Disputing Has Published Part II of our Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Co. Guest Post

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Blogroll