Archive for the ‘Arbitrability’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer 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 »

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 »

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.  .  .  .

The Tenth Circuit Tackles a Narrow Arbitration Clause: Chelsea Family Pharmacy, PLLC v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.

June 8th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Comments Off on The Tenth Circuit Tackles a Narrow Arbitration Clause: Chelsea Family Pharmacy, PLLC v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.

 Introduction

Arbitrability disputes come in various forms.  Some involve broad arbitration clauses, some narrow clauses, and some clauses that are neither broad nor narrow.  Chelsea Family Pharmacy, PLLC v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. 2009) (available here) provides a relatively simple illustration of how courts may decide controversies concerning relatively narrow arbitration clauses and the results that may ensue.  Continue Reading »

Hall Street Meets Pearl Street: Stolt-Nielsen and the Federal Arbitration Act’s New Section 10(a)(4)

May 29th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Grounds for Vacatur, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 11 Comments »

Introduction

Victoria VanBuren’s May 4, 2009 guest post,  Hall Street Meets S. Maestri Place: What Standards of Review will the Fifth Circuit Apply to Arbitration Awards Under FAA Section 10(a)(4) after Citigroup? (available here), looked at the scope of Section 10(a)(4) in the Fifth Circuit after Hall Street Assoc. v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008) and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Bacon, 562 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2009). Today we look at the scope of Section 10(a)(4) in the Second Circuit after Hall Street met Pearl Street in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed Mar. 26, 2009 (No. 08-1198), in which the Second Circuit said that, notwithstanding its prior case law suggesting otherwise,  “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.  .  .  .”  As we shall see, the Second Circuit justified that holding by taking a more expansive view of Section 10(a)(4) than it previously had, a view that may also permit challenges based on “manifest disregard of the agreement.”  Continue Reading »

Reinsurance Nuts & Bolts: Honorable Engagement Clauses

May 18th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Nuts & Bolts, Nuts & Bolts: Reinsurance, Reinsurance Arbitration 1 Comment »

Introduction

In today’s Nuts & Bolts post we take a brief look at honorable engagement clauses, which are sometimes referred to as “honorable undertaking” clauses.  Honorable engagement clauses are, for practical purposes, a species of choice of law clause.   Generally, they confer upon arbitration panels a degree of freedom to depart from the strict rules of law and evidence, and to interpret the contract as an honorable engagement rather than literally according to its terms.  They are premised on the now arguably outmoded historical concept that a reinsurance contract is more than a contract, but an honorable undertaking, a deal that  is closed when the parties shake hands over a cocktail (or three), and one by which the parties are honor-bound to abide.  They also recognize that reinsurance is an arcane business with its own peculiar set of customs, practices and norms, and that, if the parties so agree, arbitrators should be reasonably free to apply these norms in deciding a case, even if a court faced with the same facts would or could not. 

Honorable engagement clauses are more common in older reinsurance contracts than in those written today.  But many reinsurance disputes arise out of long-tail asbestos or environmental claims arising out of decades-old contracts, a great many of which contain these clauses.  And the clauses can have some significant implications in those disputes. Continue Reading »

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 »

The Senate Weighs in With Its Own Arbitration Fairness Act

May 7th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Legislative Developments, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

On April 29 — a/k/a “Arbitration Fairness Day” – – Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced the Senate’s version of the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 (S. 931).  The Senate’s version  tracks the House version in many respects, but there are some important differences between the two. 

The Senate Arbitration Fairness Act adds a Chapter 4 to the Federal Arbitration Act, rather than amending Section 2 of Chapter 1.  This Proposed Chapter 4 consists of two sections:  Section 401, entitled “Definitions”; and Section 402, entitled “Validity and Enforceability.”  Proposed Section 402(a) states:  “In General – Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable if it requires arbitration of an employment, consumer, franchise, or civil rights dispute.”  Proposed Section 402(b) provides: 

(1)  IN GENERAL – An issue as to whether this chapter applies to an arbitration agreement shall be determined under Federal law.  The applicability of this chapter to an agreement to arbitrate and the validity and enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate to which this chapter applies shall be determined by the court, rather than the arbitrator, irrespective of whether the party resisting arbitration challenges the arbitration agreement specifically or in conjunction with other terms of the contract containing such agreement. 

(2)  COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS – Nothing in this chapter shall apply to any arbitration provision in a contract between an employer and a labor organization or between labor organizations, except that no such arbitration provision shall have the effect of waiving the right of an employee to seek judicial enforcement of a right arising under a provision of the Constitution of the United States, a State constitution, or a Federal or State statute, or public policy arising therefrom.  Continue Reading »

ReliaStar Life Insurance Co. v. EMC National Life Co.: Critical Analysis of an Important Reinsurance Arbitration Decision

April 28th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Life Reinsurance, New York Court of Appeals, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 3 Comments »

Introduction

We recently reported on ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. EMC National Life Co., ___ F.3d ___, ___ (2009) (Raggi, J.) (blogged here), 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 “[e]ach party 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.”  This post takes a critical look at ReliaStar.  

The Second Circuit is one of the most influential and respected  Circuit Courts of Appeal in the United States, yet on occasion even this prestigious court renders a decision that is open to question.  ReliaStar is one of those decisions.  The majority opinion lost sight of what the parties agreed about the arbitrators’ power to award attorney fees.  Rather than adhere to the plain meaning of the parties’ agreement as required by New York  law, the Court construed an unambiguous limitation on arbitral authority to mean something other than what it said. 

No doubt that the Court believed that its decision would encourage resort to arbitration by construing arbitral authority broadly.  But the Court would have done a far better job encouraging resort to arbitration had it simply enforced the parties’ agreement as written.  One of the most attractive features of arbitration is that parties get to dictate how they want their dispute decided, including, among other things, how best to allocate the costs, fees and expenses of deciding it.   But that feature falls by the wayside if courts cannot be relied upon to enforce arbitration agreements as written.  Continue Reading »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »