main image

Archive for June, 2009

« Older Entries

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 »

KX Reinsurance Company v. General Reinsurance Corp.: Arbitrators May Not Retain Jurisdiction After Deciding All Submitted Issues

June 28th, 2009 Association of Insurance and Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC), Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Functus Officio, Grounds for Vacatur, Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 1 Comment »

 Arbitration clauses in reinsurance contracts  typically recognize either expressly or impliedly that an arbitration proceeding has a beginning and an end.   The process usually begins with a demand for arbitration and the selection of an arbitration panel, and ends with the arbitrators holding a hearing on the merits and issuing a final award.  At that point the parties generally expect that the arbitrators will step down, and that any future dispute will be the subject of a new arbitration proceeding, perhaps with a different panel. Continue Reading »

Peter Scarpato Reports on the Association of Insurance & Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC) Dispute Resolution Procedure for Small Claims

June 27th, 2009 Association of Insurance and Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC), Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration Comments Off on Peter Scarpato Reports on the Association of Insurance & Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC) Dispute Resolution Procedure for Small Claims

The Spring 2009 issue of AIRROC Matters is out and available here:

http://www.airroc.org/files/AIRROC_Spring_2009.pdf.

Peter Scarpato (website here), Editor-in-Chief of AIRROC Matters, wrote an interesting article on AIRROC’s new Dispute Resolution Procedure for Small Claims. The procedure is designed to provide a cost-effective alternative to a full-blown reinsurance arbitration for resolving relatively small-dollar reinsurance disputes. Peter’s article, which is highly recommended, appears on page 9 of the newsletter.   (Not too long ago, Peter submitted to the Forum an excellent guest post on mediation of reinsurance disputes, introduction to the post available here, and post available here.)

I sense on the part of many some dissatisfaction with certain aspects of reinsurance arbitration practice. One popular complaint is cost — not only the cost of legal services, but arbitrator fees. Tied into cost is time — most reinsurance attorneys and arbitrators charge by the hour, and reinsurance arbitrations can be as lenghty, or nearly as lengthy as court proceedings. In some cases, they are more lengthy.

When the amount at stake is tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, then the cost/value ratio may not be that high, but when the value of the claim goes down, the cost/value ratio tends to go up (even though the costs are lower from a dollars and cents perspective).  

What AIRROC (website here) has done is devised an alternative procedure featuring expedited proceedings, a $150 per hour cap on arbitrator fees, and a single arbitrator. The procedure (which, of course, is voluntary) may well provide a useful alternative to a full-blown arbitration for claims whose dollar value is small enough to fall within its scope. 

We’d  be interested in what others think about the procedure.  In addition, we’d be interested in hearing people’s thoughts on whether the procedure might provide a workable blueprint for other industry small-claims procedures.

The Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group is Now 150 Members Strong!

June 24th, 2009 Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group, General Comments Off on The Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group is Now 150 Members Strong!

On May 21, 2009 Disputing and the Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum announced the formation of a LinkedIn Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group (post available here), an open forum for the discussion of industry and commercial ADR.  At that time the group was 29 members strong, and we are pleased to report that the group has since grown to 150 members.  Discussions have been lively, the group is internationally and professionally diverse, and group members have access to several ADR blogs, as well as articles posted by other group members.  It is an excellent networking and learning opportunity for anyone interested in commercial and industry ADR. 

We welcome new members.  Persons who should consider joining this group include arbitrators; mediators; in-house and outside counsel; law professors; dispute-resolution consultants; members of  ADR organizations; business entity representatives and principals whose day-to-day responsibilities include dispute resolution; law students and other students of commercial and industry ADR; and anyone else interested in the subject. 

If you are already a member of LinkedIn, please click here to apply for membership in the Group.  If you are not a LinkedIn member, click here, and you will be guided through the process of creating a profile (which does not have to be completed in one step).  Once your profile is started, and you have a log-in name and password, you can apply for membership in the Group (which entails no more than clicking on a button).  Joining LinkedIn is free, as is joining the group. 

We hope you’ll join us and participate!

The AAA Commercial Rules and the Pig in a Poke: Gilbert Street Developers, LLC v. La Quinta Homes, LLC

June 24th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, California State Courts, Grounds for Vacatur 3 Comments »

Introduction

Under the Federal Arbitration Act and federal labor law, arbitrators can decide arbitrability questions subject only to deferential review, provided the parties “clearly and unmistakably” delegate that power to them.  California’s state arbitration law follows this familiar federal rule. 

On June 11, 2009 the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, held that the parties to an arbitration agreement did not “clearly and unmistakably” agree to arbitrate arbitrability by incorporating the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association into their contract, because at the time the parties agreed to arbitrate, the rules were silent on whether arbitrators could decide arbitrability questions.  See Gilbert Street Developers, LLC v. La Quinta Homes, LLC, ___ Cal. Rptr.3d ___, slip op (Cal. App. 4th Dist. June 11, 2009) (certified for publication) (copy available here).  The Court so held even though the parties agreed that the arbitration would be “conducted in accordance with the Rules of the American Arbitration Association existing at the date [of the arbitration].  .  .  . ,” and by the date of the arbitration the rules had been amended to provide expressly that the arbitrators had the authority to determine their own jurisdiction.  See slip op. at 2-3.  The Court also held that the operation of a “buyout” clause in the parties’ agreement did not fall within the scope of the parties’ arbitration clause because it involved discretionary matters, which were expressly excluded from arbitration.  See slip op. at 15-16.  Continue Reading »

Stern v. Bluestone: A Decision of Interest to All Attorneys Subject to Attorney Advertising Rules

June 23rd, 2009 General, Legal Ethics, New York Court of Appeals Comments Off on Stern v. Bluestone: A Decision of Interest to All Attorneys Subject to Attorney Advertising Rules

Introduction

Today we look at Stern v. Lavoott Bluestone, ___ N.Y. 2d ___, slip op. (June 11, 2009), a New York Court of Appeals decision that has nothing to do with either reinsurance or arbitration law.  Before you conclude that we’ve finally lost our marbles, let us explain:  The decision is of critical importance to all reinsurance and arbitration attorneys subject to attorney advertising restrictions — indeed, it is important to all attorneys subject to those restrictions.    The Court held that an attorney’s newsletter that was purely informational in content was not an “unsolicited advertisement” for the purposes of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, as added by Pub. L. 102-243, 105 U.S. Stat. 2394, which prohibits the dissemination of such advertisements by facsimile. Continue Reading »

The $4.1 Billion Arbitration Award: Update

June 19th, 2009 Awards, California State Courts Comments Off on The $4.1 Billion Arbitration Award: Update

On June 14 we reported on the $4.1 billion arbitration award recently confirmed by a California state court, and provided our readers with some links to other articles on the subject.  (Post available here.)   Since that time we have been told that the defendants did not cross-move to vacate or otherwise respond to the motion to confirm, at least in any meaningful fashion.  We have not verified that assertion, but if true, there would not appear to be any meaningful ground for an appeal.    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 5 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 10 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.  .  .  .

A Case to Watch Carefully: The $4.1 Billion Arbitration Award

June 14th, 2009 Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, California State Courts, Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group 1 Comment »

Arbitration fans following the blogosphere — or participating in LinkedIn’s Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group (here) — have no doubt heard about the $4.1 billion arbitration award recently confirmed by a California state court.   Check out the coverage in Victoria Pynchon’s Settle It Now Negotiation Blog, here and here, and Victoria VanBuren’s Disputing blog, here.  These posts feature a news article, related links and copies of the judgment and arbitration award.   One of Victoria Pynchon’s posts includes a very amusing video clip from Cabaret, featuring Liza Minelli!

The award arose out of an employment dispute between Paul Chester, the former chief operating officer of  iFreedom Communications, Inc., and iFreedom and its founder, Timothy Ringgenberg.  Mr. Chester claimed, and JAMS arbitrator William F. McDonald, a retired judge, agreed, that iFreedom did not receive commissions, back wages and other benefits due him under his employment agreement, and that he was fired without cause after he confronted his employer about this.  The compensatory component of the award is roughly $1 billion, which Arbitrator McDonald trebled based on iFreedom’s alleged bad faith.  The award is quite lengthy (27 pages), and provides a detailed breakdown of the various claims and corresponding damages.  The award states that the damages are ” appropriate to punish and make an example of defendants.”  (Query whether “making an example of Defendants” is a proper subject of private arbitration. ) Continue Reading »

« Older Entries