main image

Archive for the ‘Events’ Category

Charles Bennett, Richard D. Faulkner, and Philip J. Loree Jr. Participate in Federalist Society Webinar Discussing SCOTUS’s 2023 Term Arbitration Decisions  

September 20th, 2024 and Podcasts, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Charles Bennett, CPR Video Interviews, Events, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Courts, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), Loree and Faulkner Interviews, Practice and Procedure, Professor Angela Downes, Professor Downes, Richard D. Faulkner, Russ Bleemer, The Federalist Society, United States Supreme Court No Comments »

Rick Faulkner, Chuck Bennett, and Phil Loree As readers may remember on May 29, 2024, our friend and colleague Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, Newsletter of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) (“CPR Alternatives”), interviewed our friends and colleagues—Professor Angela Downes, University of North Texas-Dallas College of Law Professor of Practice and Assistant Director of Experiential Education; arbitrator, mediator, arbitration-law attorney,  former judge, and overall arbitration guru, Richard D. Faulkner (“Rick Faulkner”); and yours truly, Loree Law Firm principal, Philip J. Loree Jr.— about the three arbitration cases the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) heard and decided this 2023 Term: (a) Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024); (b) Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024); and (c) Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. ___ (2024). (See here and here.) That interview was one of several that we have given to CPR concerning arbitration law developments. (See, e.g.,  here, here, and here.) All of them are posted on CPR’s YouTube channel, @CPRInstituteOnline.

On September 10, 2024, Rick Faulkner, whom regular readers should know well by now;  highly-skilled and successful trial lawyer (and former pro basketball player), Charles Bennett (“Chuck Bennett”); and the author, Philip J. Loree Jr., participated in a Federalist Society webinar entitled “Recent Supreme Court Decisions: Implications for the Business World.”  (See here.) The webinar was sponsored by the Federalist Society’s Litigation Practice Group, and hosted by Caroline Bryant, Associate Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society, who introduced the panel’s members and otherwise ensured that things ran smoothly.  Chuck Bennett’s, Rick Faulkner’s, and my own Federalist Society bios are here, here, and here.

As the Federalist Society aptly put it, “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court continues to shape arbitration law through a strict interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), with each term introducing new nuances.” (See here.) The webinar was designed to “explore Supreme Court decisions from the latest term and examine recent interpretations by federal appeals courts, focusing on their impact on arbitration practice.” (See here.)  It sought to “offer practical insights into the evolving landscape of arbitration law, updates for attorneys to ensure compliance with the latest legal developments, and strategies to optimize arbitration for clients currently using or considering arbitration.” (See here.)

Rick Faulkner, Chuck Bennett, and I discussed in detail the Bissonnette, Spizzirri, and Coinbase decisions, as well as “infinite arbitration clauses,” subject matter jurisdiction, and a recent highly publicized (but now voluntarily resolved) arbitration dispute concerning the Walt Disney Company. Chuck provided the unique perspective of a trial lawyer thoroughly versed in arbitration matters.

You can view the webinar here. That link also allows you to download it, or listen to it on Apple, Google, Spotify, or Amazon podcast platforms.

Chuck, Rick Faulkner, and I express our sincere gratitude to Caroline, the Federalist Society’s Litigation Group, and the Federalist Society itself, for sponsoring the program and giving us an opportunity to share with others some of our thoughts on arbitration-law matters, including the arbitration-law cases SCOTUS decided this year.

Please note that, as set forth in its website, “the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.” (See here.)

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, arbitration-law, arbitration-related litigation, then please contact Philip J. Loree Jr., at (516) 941-6094 or PJL1@LoreeLawFirm.com.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is principal of the Loree Law Firm, a New York attorney who focuses his practice on arbitration and associated litigation. A former BigLaw partner, he has nearly 35 years of experience representing a wide variety of corporate, other entity, and individual clients in matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act, as well as in insurance or reinsurance-related and other matters.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

 Photo Acknowledgment

The photo featured in this post was licensed from Yay Images and is subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

 

 

HarrisMartin Reinsurance Conference Postscript

September 28th, 2011 Events, Evident Partiality, Grounds for Vacatur, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Comments Off on HarrisMartin Reinsurance Conference Postscript

On September 22-23, 2011, a number of experienced reinsurance industry executives and  in-house counsel, and a small group of outside counsel (yours truly included), spoke at the HarrisMartin Publishing-sponsored reinsurance conference, “Reinsurance Summit:  Fresh Perspectives on the Reinsurance Front,” which took place at the Loews Philadelphia Hotel.  (Our pre-conference, August 22, 2011 post (here) sets forth the conference program agenda.)

As expected attendance was modest – no doubt the result of the cost-cutting mandated by economic conditions, coupled with reduced reinsurance-dispute frequency and severity — but the conference was nevertheless a great success.  The presentations were thoughtful, interesting and professionally useful, and the smaller group of attendees not only facilitated robust – and sometimes, spirited – discussions during the program, but also provided a relaxed atmosphere conducive to networking during the breaks.  I, for one, returned home with “fresh perspectives” on a number of reinsurance-related issues, and those perspectives have proved to be good fodder for brainstorming. Continue Reading »

HARRISMARTIN REINSURANCE SUMMIT: FRESH PERSPECTIVES ON THE REINSURANCE FRONT

August 22nd, 2011 Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Events, Reinsurance Arbitration, Reinsurance Claims, Reinsurance Mediation Comments Off on HARRISMARTIN REINSURANCE SUMMIT: FRESH PERSPECTIVES ON THE REINSURANCE FRONT

The frequency of reinsurance disputes, like most things in the insurance industry, is cyclical in nature, and over the last three or four years or so, the number of new disputes each year has declined fairly significantly compared to 1990 through 2005 levels.  I don’t have statistics to back that statement up, but it is informed by personal experience and numerous discussions with industry participants and their service providers.

Reduced dispute frequency is good news for the industry, but it doesn’t mean that industry executives should assume that reinsurance disputes are a thing of the past, ignore important developments that bear on their resolution, or become less proactive in their efforts to prevent them.  Keeping apprised of recent, pertinent reinsurance- and dispute-resolution-related legal, regulatory and economic developments is particularly important today, because there have been – and will likely continue to be – many that may bear on the nature and frequency of future reinsurance disputes.

To that end, a number of experienced industry executives and  in-house counsel, and a small group of outside counsel, have joined forces with HarrisMartin Publishing to put together a two-day conference designed to survey important, recent developments concerning reinsurance and reinsurance dispute resolution.  The conference — entitled “Reinsurance Summit:  Fresh Perspectives on the Reinsurance Front” — is scheduled to take place at the Lowes Philadelphia Hotel on September 22-23, 2011. Continue Reading »

Two Upcoming and Notable ADR-Related Events of Interest

June 3rd, 2010 Events, Mediation, Negotiation, Securities Arbitration Comments Off on Two Upcoming and Notable ADR-Related Events of Interest

Our good friends Don Philbin and Victoria Pynchon are presenting this June on ADR-related subjects. 

On June 9, 2010, Don Philbin will be giving a presentation entitled “Deal or No Deal — Negotiation Strategy in Mediations,” as part of a Securities Arbitration & Mediation CLE program sponsored by the City Bar Center for CLE and other organizations.  (The program agenda is here.)  The program will be held at 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. on June 9, 2010 at the New York City Bar (formerly “The Association of the Bar of the City of New York”), 42 West 44th Street, New York, New York 10036.   A one-hour networking lunch follows, beginning at 12:00 noon.  The program offers California, New York and Illinois CLE credit.  For information about fees and registration, click here or call the New York City Bar at (212) 382-6663.  

Don is an excellent speaker and has a unique, brain-science-oriented approach to negotiation and mediation.  He is also a very experienced arbitrator, mediator, attorney and consultant, whose many contributions to the ADR world include the ADR Highlight Reel (read about it here).   You can read about one of his prior presentations here, and his Forum guest post here and here. 

On June 10, 2010 Victoria Pynchon, along with John W. Tinghitella, is hosting a Negotiation for Women Workshop to be held in Pasedena, California.   The promotional materials for Vickie’s workshop point out some troubling statistics: 

  1. Women are 4 times less likely to negotiate their salaries after college and they lose up to a million dollars over their careers as a result
  2. Women own and manage 40% of all small businesses in the U.S., but obtain only 2 ½% of available venture capital
  3. Women continue to earn 77 cents on every male dollar. Professional women earn even less – women attorneys, for instance, earn only 60 cents on the male lawyer’s dollar

The workshop is designed to give women “the insight and tools to recognize your existing skills and seize the opportunities you’re now overlooking.  This will allow you to negotiate better working conditions, higher salaries, more benefits and better prices for your products and services.” 

For more information about Victoria’s workshop, including registration instructions, click here.  And you can read her recent blog post about the workshop, “Closing the Wage Gap Rocking Your World,” here.

This program comes highly recommended for women young and old, professional and nonprofessional.  Negotiation is a critical part of all of our day-to-day lives and anything that can make us better at it is a worthwhile endeavor.  And Vickie and John Tinghitella are recognized and respected authorities on the subject.

In fact, the program is of such practical value that I recommended it to one of my California-based sisters who lives within a reasonable driving distance of Pasadena.

David J. Abeshouse Is Presenting a CLE Seminar this Wednesday, April 7, 2010: What Dispute Resolution Can Mean For Your Practice

April 3rd, 2010 Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group, Events, Mediation Comments Off on David J. Abeshouse Is Presenting a CLE Seminar this Wednesday, April 7, 2010: What Dispute Resolution Can Mean For Your Practice

On April 7, 2010 our good friend David J. Abeshouse, a prominent Long-Island-based B-2-B litigator, arbitrator and mediator, is presenting a complimentary CLE seminar entitled: “Business ADR for Lawyers: What Alternative Dispute Resolution Can Mean For Your Practice.  The 1 ½ hour seminar will, among other things, discuss what ADR is all about; explore some of the many myths and misconceptions about ADR; outline the 3 principal ways that cases can wind up in ADR; and explain how ADR can benefit transactional lawyers, litigators, and clients alike.

The program will be held at the Melville Marriott, 1350 Old Walt Whitman Road, Melville, NY 11747. Breakfast and registration will be held between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., and the seminar will begin at 8:30 a.m. It has been approved for 1.5 New York CLE credits.

Space is limited, so if you are interested in attending, please RSVP by e-mail or fax:

Email: events@ultimateabstract.com

Fax: 631-501-1370

Telephone: 631-423-1600

David is an experienced public speaker and a vigorous advocate of ADR, so the seminar promises to be a very good one.  You can learn more about David’s practice here. 

I’ll certainly be there, and I hope you’ll be able to attend, too.

Holman Fenwick Willan and The Loree Law Firm Give London Talk on U.S. Versus English Arbitration Law

December 7th, 2009 Association of Insurance and Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC), English Law, Events, London Market, Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration Comments Off on Holman Fenwick Willan and The Loree Law Firm Give London Talk on U.S. Versus English Arbitration Law

On December 1, 2009 my friend and colleague Costas Frangeskides , a partner at Holman Fenwick Willan (“HFW” or “Holmans”), and I gave a presentation at HFW’s London offices entitled “Reinsurance Arbitration:  Approaching Things Differently Either Side of the ‘Pond.'”   The program was moderated by Holmans partner Andrew Bandurka, who, like Costas, focuses his practice on reinsurance and insurance dispute resolution.  I have known Costas and Andrew for several years as we were co-counsel in a long-running matter handled by Holmans and my former law firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP. 

The presentation was designed to provide reinsurance professionals with some insights concerning the differences between U.S. and English reinsurance arbitration practice and procedure.  The principal theme was that U.S. arbitration law is designed principally to enforce the parties’ arbitration agreement as written, placing it on the same footing as all other contracts, while English arbitration law favors party automony, but also imposes a greater number of policy-based norms regulating arbitration, which limit to some extent the parties’ ability to structure their dispute resolution procedure exactly as they see fit. Continue Reading »