United States Supreme Court | Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum

Posts Tagged ‘United States Supreme Court’

Update on Federal Arbitration Act Cases Pending in the United States Supreme Court

September 29th, 2009 Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1 Comment »

Today the United States Supreme Court is considering whether to grant certiorari in three cases that concern whether manifest disregard of the law remains a viable ground for vacating or modifying an arbitration award after Hall Street Assoc., L.L.C. v. Mattel , Inc, 552 U.S. ___, slip op. (March 25, 2008). The first is The Coffee Beanery, Ltd. v. WW, LLC, 300 Fed. Appx. 415 (6th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed May 11, 2009 (08-1396), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that manifest disregard survived Hall Street as an independent ground for vacatur, and that an award in favor of a franchisor must be vacated because the arbitrator manifestly disregarded Maryland franchise law requiring franchisors to disclose certain types of prior criminal convictions. The Sixth Circuit also found that the franchisor’s failure to disclose the conviction vitiated the arbitration clause contained in the franchise contract, a holding that seems questionable in light of Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 449 (2006).

The second case is Grain v. Trinity Health, 551 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed May 19, 2009 (08-1446), in which the Sixth Circuit held that the arbitrators’ failure to enforce the parties’ choice of Michigan law as respects the issue of costs and attorney fees — characterized as manifest disregard of the law — was not a valid ground for modifying an arbitration award under Federal Arbitration Act Section 11.

The third is Improv West Associates v. Comedy Club, Inc., 553 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. ), petition for cert. filed June 8, 2009 (08-1529), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that manifest disregard of the law remained viable after Hall Street because it fell within the ambit of Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(4), and vacated an award on the ground that the arbitrator’s interpretation of applicable state law was “fundamentally incorrect,” albeit made in good faith.

The briefs in support of and in opposition to both petitions, as well as the lower court decisions, can be obtained by visiting one of our favorite blogs, the SCOTUSblog, here and here. It will be interesting to see whether the United States Supreme Court decides to grant certiorari in any or all of these cases.

On a related matter, Petitioners’ and amici merits briefs 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) can be accessed via the American Bar Association’s website, here. Respondent’s briefs are due later in October and oral argument has been scheduled for December 9, 2009. (See Russ Kunkel’s LawMemo Arbitration Blog here). We have written extensively on Stolt-Nielsen, which concerns whether class arbitration may be imposed on parties whose contracts are silent on that point. (Posts available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

Finally, we are following the petition for certiorari filed in the American Express Merchants’ Litigation (blogged here), which has not yet come up for conference. The Amex Merchants’ Litigation concerns whether class arbitration waivers comport with federal antitrust policy.

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

Disputing Publishes Part IVB of our Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp. Guest Post

September 21st, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Guest Posts, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 2 Comments »

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….

Disputing 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.?

August 6th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Guest Posts, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 4 Comments »

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 (5^th 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 that case. That’s what we have set out to do in a four-part guest post, Part I of which was published today. (Check it out here.)

As readers may already know, the issue before the United States Supreme Court is whether it is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act to impose class arbitration on parties whose arbitration agreement is silent on that point. This is the same issue that the Supreme Court set out to decide in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003), but ultimately never did because a plurality of the Court ruled that there was a disputed issue of contract interpretation as to whether the agreements in that case were, in fact, silent on class arbitration, which resulted in a remand to the arbitrator. But in Stolt-Nielsen the panel ruled, and the parties agreed, that the contracts are silent on this key point, so the Supreme Court will presumably confront the issue head on.

The Supreme Court’s decision next Term 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 some advance coverage, tune into Disputing….

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey: United States Supreme Court Holds 1986 John-Manville Bankruptcy Court Injunction Bars Direct Asbestos-Related Claims Against The Travelers

July 8th, 2009 Asbestos-Related Claims, United States Supreme Court No Comments »

Introduction

On June 18, 2009 the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that an injunction (the “1986 Injunction”) incorporated into the 1986 Johns-Manville Corp. (“Manville”) bankruptcy reorganization order (the “1986 Order”) barred claims made directly against Manville’s insurer, the Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”), even though those claims were derivative of Travelers’ alleged wrongdoing, as opposed to that of Manville. See Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, ___ U.S. ___ (June 18, 2009) (Souter, J.) (copy available here). The Court held that: (a) the claims fell within the terms of the 1986 Injunction; and (b) the claimants were barred by res judicata from collaterally attacking the Bankruptcy Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the 1986 Order containing the 1986 Injunction. Slip op. at 1-2 & 9-10.

The decision should bring some degree of finality to Manville’s insurers’ exposure to asbestos-related claims, which has been a moving target for quite some time. The effect, if any, the decision may have on reinsurance claims and disputes is not yet clear. That said, now that Travelers’ liabilities presumably can more easily be quantified, cedents, retrocedents, reinsurers and retrocessionaires whose claims and liabilities are derived from Travelers’ and other Manville insurers’ liabilities might be in a better position to attempt to settle or commute those claims and liabilities. And, in a more general sense, the decision provides some guidance on how bankruptcy-court channeling-injunctions should be interpreted, and the extent to which, if at all, such injunctions may be collaterally attacked for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Continue Reading »

Shipkevich v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, and the “Clear and Unmistakable” Rule

June 30th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

On April 4 we reported on 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 129 S. Ct. 1456 (2009) (Thomas, J.), and published a follow-up post on April 7, 2009 (posts available here and here). The question before the Court was whether “a collective bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate [Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA")] claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.” The Court told us the answer was “yes.”

That answer, of course, begs the question whether any particular collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) “clearly and unmistakably” requires arbitration of statutory claims. The Court in Shipkevich v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., No. 08-CV-1008 (FB)(JMA), 2009 WL 1706590 (E.D.N.Y. June 16, 2009) recently considered, among other things, whether the CBA before it clearly and unmistakably required arbitration of claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), New York State civil rights legislation, and New York City’s Human Rights Law, and said the answer was “no.” So let’s take a brief look at Shipkevich to get some perspective on what “clear and unmistakable” means. Continue Reading »

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

June 17th, 2009 Appellate Practice, Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 6 Comments »

On June 15, we reported briefly on the grant of certiorari in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009) (post available here). As readers will recall the issue before the Court is whether imposing class arbitration on a party whose arbitration clause is silent on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.

On May 29, 2009 American Express filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the American Express Merchants’ Litigation, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a provision in an arbitration agreement forbidding class action arbitration was invalid and unenforceable under the circumstances of that case. See Re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, 554 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (08-1473) (May 29, 2009). (A copy of the Second Circuit decision is here, and the Supreme Court Docket sheet is here.) Opposition papers are due June 29, 2009. Continue Reading »

Update: Certiorari Granted in the Stolt-Nielsen Case!

June 15th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 11 Comments »

On May 29, 2009 we discussed Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009), which held that “manifest disregard of the law” is not an independent basis for vacating an arbitration award foreclosed by Hall Street, but one encompassed within Section 10(a)(4)’s prohibition against arbitrators “exceed[ing] their powers. . . .” This morning the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Stolt-Nielsen to decide whether imposing class arbitration on parties whose arbitration clauses are silent on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. The Second Circuit found that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers when they ordered a class action arbitration, even though the contract was concededly silent on whether class arbitrations were permitted.

We shall post in the not too distant future an analysis of the issue the United States Supreme Court will decide, as its resolution potentially has important implications on the powers of arbitrators to consolidate arbitrations or order class-action arbitration proceedings.

Stay tuned. . . .

Recent United States Supreme Court Decision May Further Undermine ReliaStar Life Ins. v. EMC National Life Co. Holding

May 8th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Life Reinsurance, New York Court of Appeals, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

We recently critiqued ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. EMC National Life Co., ___ F.3d ___ (2009) (Raggi, J.), 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 each “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 believe that the majority opinion did not faithfully apply New York’s strict rules of contract interpretation and construction, which the parties expressly agreed would apply. You can find our critique here, and a report on the case here. Continue Reading »

Posts Tagged ‘United States Supreme Court’

Update on Federal Arbitration Act Cases Pending in the United States Supreme Court

Disputing Publishes Part IVB of our Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp. Guest Post

Disputing 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.?

Shipkevich v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, and the “Clear and Unmistakable” Rule

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

Update: Certiorari Granted in the Stolt-Nielsen Case!

Recent United States Supreme Court Decision May Further Undermine ReliaStar Life Ins. v. EMC National Life Co. Holding

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Blogroll