Archive for the ‘Class Action Waivers’ Category

Newer Entries »

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 5 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 »

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 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….

Guest Post: The Argument for Judicial Power to Void Mandatory Arbitration Agreements and Class Action Waivers on State Public Policy Grounds

August 17th, 2009 Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1 Comment »

By Professor Peter Friedman         

In my recent two-part guest post published in Disputing about recent state court decisions striking down mandatory arbitration clauses and class action waivers in consumer, online transactions, I concluded that those courts were “acting in legitimate ways [by requiring contract] disputes to be resolved in ways that provide relief for and deterrence of wrongdoing.”   (Part I here; Part II here)  In particular, I applauded the  New Mexico Supreme Court and the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for making explicit the purely public policy grounds for invalidating mandatory arbitration clauses and class action waivers in consumer transactions.  See  Feeney v. Dell Inc., ___ Mass. ___ (July 2, 2009); Fiser v. Dell Computer Corp., ___ P.3d ___ (N.M. June 27, 2009). The courts concluded that the provisions deprived consumers of any meaningful remedies for the defendants’ alleged breaches of contract and that those provisions were therefore in conflict with strong state policies in favor of consumer protection.

It is worth examining more closely, however, my reasons for believing the courts in these cases were acting in judicially legitimate ways.  It might be suggested, for example, that, if a court could strike these particular provisions down on public policy it had articulated without explicit statutory support, there would be nothing to stop courts from striking down any arbitration provisions on judicially formulated public policy grounds. Continue Reading »

Introducing Guest-Blogger Professor Peter Friedman: “The Argument for Judicial Power to Void Mandatory Arbitration Agreements and Class Action Waivers on State Public Policy Grounds”

August 17th, 2009 Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Guest Posts, Uncategorized Comments Off on Introducing Guest-Blogger Professor Peter Friedman: “The Argument for Judicial Power to Void Mandatory Arbitration Agreements and Class Action Waivers on State Public Policy Grounds”

Today we present a guest post by Professor Peter Friedman concerning the argument for judicial power to void class action waivers and arbitration agreements based on state public policy grounds. 

I met Peter through the LinkedIn Commercial and Industry Arbitration Group (learn about the group here).   He’s a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Detroit Mercy Law School, where he teaches Contracts and Core Concepts.  He also teaches U.S. Contract Law at the University of Windsor and the Universiteit van Amsterdam.  He is currently on leave from the Case Western University School of Law, where he has been on the faculty since January 1996.  He’s a very smart, creative guy who is devoted to the law, critical analysis of important legal issues, and, even more importantly, legal education.    

Prior to entering the academic world, Peter spent eleven years immersed in the practice of commercial litigation in New York City, most recently as a partner in the New York City office of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.  He graduated with his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1984 and his A.B. in Ancient Greek and Latin from Brown University in 1981.

Since August 2008, Peter has written a blog, Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity, that explores the ways law affects creative endeavors and the ways creativity informs the practice of law.  Prior to Ruling Imagination, he authored What is Fair Use?, a blog he wrote in connection with an assignment in one of his legal writing classes in which his students drafted cross-motions for summary judgment for a copyright infringement lawsuit.  Just this month Peter has also begun a blog, 1L Contracts, in which he intends to explore issues connected with the law of contracts as they arise through the coming academic year in his Contracts class at Detroit Mercy. Continue Reading »

Feeney v. Dell Inc.: A Critical Analysis

July 17th, 2009 Arbitrability, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 3 Comments »

Introduction

In part I of a two-part post (here), we summarized the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts’ decision in Feeney v. Dell Inc., ___ Mass. ___, slip op. (July 2, 2009).  The Court there refused to enforce an arbitration agreement in a consumer contract because it contained a class action waiver that the Court found violative of Massachusetts public policy favoring class actions under G.L., c. 93A, and which the Court found not to be severable from the remainder of the arbitration agreement.  The Court also refused to enforce on public policy grounds a choice-of-law clause providing that Texas law — which apparently permits class action waivers — would govern the parties’ agreement.  In this part II we discuss whether the decision comports with the Federal Arbitration Act.

The critical issue in Feeney was whether a state public policy against class action waivers was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, the preeminent purpose of which is to enforce according to their terms arbitration agreements falling within its scope.  With all due respect to the SJC, we think Feeney was a tough case and that the preemption issue was a close call.  The Court obviously worked hard to justify the outcome and drilled down on the preemption issue, but at the end of the day its arguments simply proved too much.  Continue Reading »

Feeney v. Dell Inc.: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Says Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement Governed by the Federal Arbitration Act Violates Massachusetts Public Policy

July 16th, 2009 Arbitrability, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 3 Comments »

Introduction

The validity of class action waivers in arbitration agreements is a controversial subject at the moment.  There is an obvious tension between the pro-enforcement policies of the Federal Arbitration Act and competing state and federal policies favoring class action arbitration or litigation as a vehicle for vindicating consumer rights.  The United States Supreme Court may provide some hint of where it stands on this issue when it decides the Stolt-Nielsen case (blogged here and here), which raises the related issue whether imposing class action arbitration is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act when the parties’ contract is silent on that score.  And the Supreme Court may directly address the issue of whether class action waivers comport with federal policy if it decides to grant certiorari in the American Express Merchants’ Litigation (blogged here).  Today we examine a case in which the question was whether a state policy in favor of consumer class actions could trump the enforcement of an arbitration agreement containing a class-action waiver. 

On July 2, 2009, in Feeney v. Dell Inc., ___ Mass. ___, slip op. (July 2, 2009), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) ruled that a class action waiver contained in a consumer arbitration agreement violated a fundamental Massachusetts public policy favoring class actions, even though the parties had agreed that Texas law, which allows class action waivers, would govern their agreement.  This violation of Massachusetts public policy, said the Court, rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable because the class action waiver was unenforceable and could not be severed from the remainder of the arbitration agreement.  But, in an interesting turn of events, the Court dismissed the consumers’ claims with leave to replead, because they failed to state a claim under Mass. G.L., c. 93A, the applicable consumer protection law. 

The case is somewhat different from other decisions voiding class action waivers because the agreement was voided on state public policy grounds, rather than on state unconscionability grounds, and because the court refused to enforce not only the class action waiver but also a choice-of-law clause indicating the parties’ desire that Texas, not Massachusetts, law would govern the class action waiver issue.  The case gives rise to serious questions concerning federal preemption of Massachusetts state policy. 

In this part I of a two-part post, we summarize the Feeny case.  In part II, which will follow tomorrow or the next day, we shall provide our critical analysis.  Because the publicly available copy of the case does not feature official pagination, we have eliminated jump cites, but provide after quotes pertinent information about internal citations, quotations and the like.    Continue Reading »

Newer Entries »