Archive for the ‘Authority of Arbitrators’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

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 1 Comment »

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….

Seventh Circuit Says Panel did not Exceed its Powers by Appointing a Replacement Arbitrator in a Manner not Specified in the Parties’ Agreement: WellPoint, Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co.

September 9th, 2009 Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Grounds for Vacatur, Reinsurance Arbitration, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Comments Off on Seventh Circuit Says Panel did not Exceed its Powers by Appointing a Replacement Arbitrator in a Manner not Specified in the Parties’ Agreement: WellPoint, Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co.

The Seventh Circuit recently decided an important case concerning what happens when Party A asks its party-appointed arbitrator to resign, the agreement is silent on how the vacancy should be filled, the remaining two arbitrators devise and implement a procedure for appointing a replacement, Party B (whose arbitrator did not resign) reserves its right to challenge the replacement procedure, and the Panel ultimately renders an award in favor of Party A.  The Court held that the Panel did not exceed its powers by adopting and implementing — in the face of the agreement’s silence, and in the absence of Party B seeking court intervention under Federal Arbitration Act Section 5 – a procedure that allowed Party A to replace its party-appointed arbitrator and continue with the arbitration.  See WellPoint, Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., ___ F.3d ___, slip op. (7th Cir.  August 7, 2009) (Slip op. here).  Continue Reading »

Disputing has Published Part IVA of Our Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Guest Post

September 1st, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Guest Posts, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 4 Comments »

On August 17, 2009 Disputing published Part III 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) (Part III available here).  In Part III we examined the background of Stolt-Nielsen and identified four issues that the United States Supreme Court will likely confront when it decides the case. 

Today Disputing published Part IVA (here), in which we consider the first issue:  Who decides whether class arbitration can be imposed on the parties when their arbitration agreements are silent on that point?  Put differently, is the question one of arbitrability for the court or one of procedural arbitrability or contract interpretation for the arbitrators?    

Resolution of the question defines the standard of review.  Questions of arbitrability are reviewed de novo on the law and for clear error on the facts.  But if the question is one of procedural arbitrability or contract interpretation, the standard is the deferential one provided by Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, the one applied by both the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 

The arbitrators in Stolt-Nielsen decided that class arbitration was authorized by the parties’ arbitration agreements even though the agreements said nothing about class arbitration.  We believe that at least five Justices will conclude that this question was one of arbitrability for the Court to decide, and will either decide the issue de novo or remand it to the lower courts to decide. 

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 has Published Part III of our Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp. Guest Post

August 17th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Guest Posts, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on Disputing has Published Part III of our Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp. Guest Post

Last week we announced that  Disputing had published Part II 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) (Disputing post here).  Today, Disputing published Part III, which discusses the background and procedural history of the Stolt-Nielsen case and identifies the key issues that the United States Supreme Court will likely consider in deciding the case.  

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….

Global Arbitration Review Quotes Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum’s Critical Analysis of ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. EMC Nat’l Life Co.

August 10th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2 Comments »

On April 28, 2009 we published “ReliaStar Life Insurance Co. v. EMC National Life Co.: Critical Analysis of an Important Reinsurance Arbitration Decision,”  available here.  On July 13, 2009 the London-based  Global Arbitration Review published an interesting article about the Second Circuit’s decision in ReliaStar, which quoted from our critical analysis:  

Writing shortly after the appeal court’s decision, Philip Loree Jr of New York firm Loree & Loree, said the court had “violated New York contract interpretation rules.” He said that, according to New York law, “to ascertain whether a contract is ambiguous, courts are required to focus on what is said, not what is omitted.” “Given that the pre-eminent purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act is to enforce the parties’ arbitration agreement as written, this case may be one of those rare Second Circuit decisions that warrant rehearing and reversal en banc,” he added.

You can find the article (subscription only) here:  ‘Bad Faith’ Costs Decision Upheld, Global Arbitration Review, July 13, 2009, our summary of the decision here, our critical analysis here, and further commentary here.  Disputing’s coverage of the case can be found here and here.

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

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….

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 3 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 (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 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….

The Texas Supreme Court Says Court – Not Arbitrator — Gets to Decide Lack of Capacity Issue Notwithstanding the Severability Doctrine

July 21st, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Texas Supreme Court Comments Off on The Texas Supreme Court Says Court – Not Arbitrator — Gets to Decide Lack of Capacity Issue Notwithstanding the Severability Doctrine

Karl Bayer’s and Victoria VanBuren’s Texas-based  Disputing blog recently reported on In re Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., __ S.W.3d __ (Texas 2009) (No. 07-0665), in which the Texas Supreme Court held that whether a contracting party had the capacity to enter into a contract containing an arbitration agreement was for the court to decide, notwithstanding that, under the severability (a/k/a “separability”) doctrine, a challenge to the validity or enforceability of a contract as a whole, including the arbitration agreement, is generally for the arbitrators to decide under a broad arbitration clause.  Ms. VanBuren did an excellent job summarizing the case and explaining its significance in her post, “Texas Supreme Court Holds that the Court, not the Arbitrator Should Decide the Issue of Capacity to Contract,” and we recommend that anyone interested in learning more about the case read her thoughtful and nicely-written post. 

Morgan Stanley illustrates that the severability doctrine —  first espoused by the United States Supreme Court in Prima Paint v. Conklin Mfg. Corp., 388 U.S. 395, 403-04 (1967) and later clarified in Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardengna, 546 U.S. 440, 449 (2006) — is not without its limits.  Severability is a legal fiction, which Courts apply for the purpose of determining whether arbitrators have the authority to determine certain disputes concerning the enforceability or validity of a contract containing an arbitration clause.  It deems the arbitration clause to be an agreement which stands on its own footing from the contract in which it is contained.  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 »

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 »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »