Archive for the ‘United States Supreme Court’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

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….

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey: United States Supreme Court Holds 1986 John-Manville Bankruptcy Court Injunction Bars Direct Asbestos-Related Claims Against The Travelers

July 8th, 2009 Asbestos-Related Claims, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey: United States Supreme Court Holds 1986 John-Manville Bankruptcy Court Injunction Bars Direct Asbestos-Related Claims Against The Travelers

Introduction

On June 18, 2009 the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that an injunction (the “1986 Injunction”)  incorporated into the 1986 Johns-Manville Corp. (“Manville”) bankruptcy reorganization order (the “1986 Order”) barred claims made directly against Manville’s insurer, the Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”), even though those claims were derivative of Travelers’ alleged wrongdoing, as opposed to that of Manville.  See Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, ___ U.S. ___ (June 18, 2009) (Souter, J.) (copy available here).  The Court held that:  (a) the claims fell within the terms of the 1986 Injunction; and (b) the claimants were barred by res judicata from collaterally attacking the Bankruptcy Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the 1986 Order containing the 1986 Injunction.  Slip op. at 1-2 & 9-10. 

The decision should bring some degree of finality to Manville’s insurers’ exposure to asbestos-related claims, which has been a moving target for quite some time.  The effect, if any, the decision may have on reinsurance claims and disputes is not yet clear.  That said, now that Travelers’ liabilities presumably can more easily be quantified, cedents, retrocedents, reinsurers and retrocessionaires whose claims and liabilities are derived from Travelers’ and other Manville insurers’ liabilities might be in a better position to attempt to settle or commute those claims and liabilities.  And, in a more general sense, the decision provides some guidance on how bankruptcy-court channeling-injunctions should be interpreted, and the extent to which, if at all, such injunctions may be collaterally attacked for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  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 »

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.  .  .  .

Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle: The United States Supreme Court Says that Non-Signatories Can Enforce Arbitration Agreements Whenever State Law Would Permit them to Enforce Contracts Generally

May 12th, 2009 Appellate Practice, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

Introduction

The Second Circuit and other courts have recognized that signatories may enforce under Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act  arbitration agreements against non-signatories whenever common-law principles of contract and agency would permit such enforcement, and that non-signatories may enforce arbitration agreements against signatories at least under an estoppel theory, and possibly under other theories of contract and agency.  See, e.g., Ross v. American Express Co., 547 F.3d 137, 143 & n.3 (2d Cir. 2008); Ross v. American Express Co., 478 F.3d 96, 99 (2d Cir. 2007); Astra Oil Co. v. Rover Navigation, Ltd., 344 F.3d 276, 279-80 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2003); Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Assoc., 64 F.3d 773, 776-80 (2d Cir. 1995).  The Second Circuit likewise allows interlocutory appeals from the denial of  Section 4 motions to compel arbitration, or Section 3 motions to stay litigation in favor of arbitration, brought by or against non-signatories.  See, generally, 478 F.3d at 99.

Certain other circuits have held that nonsigatories may not invoke Section 3 or 4 based on an estoppel theory, or at least cannot appeal on an interlocutory basis the denial of an estoppel-based Section 3 or 4 application.  See, e.g., DSMC Inc. v. Convera Corp., 349 F.2d 679, 683-84 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (then Roberts, J.); Re Universal Service Fund Tel. Billing Practice Litigation v.Sprint Communications Co., 428 F.3d 940, 945 (10th Cir. 2005) (limiting holding to whether Court of Appeals had appellate jurisdiction at interlocutory stage).  These Courts have relied on Section 3’s and 4’s requirement that the relief sought must be “under” a written agreement to arbitrate, and their determination that an estoppel claim by a non-signatory is not one “under” a written agreement to arbitrate.    

Arthur Andersen:  Issues and Holding

On May 4, 2009, in Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, ___ U.S. ___ (2009) (Scalia, J.), the United States Supreme Court resolved the circuit split in favor of the courts permitting non-signatories to avail themselves of Federal Arbitration Act Sections 3 and 4.  There were two issues before the Court:

  1. Whether the federal appellate courts have jurisdiction under Federal Arbitration Act Section 16(a) to review denials of stays of litigation requested by litigants who were not parties to the arbitration agreement; and
  2. Whether Federal Arbitration Act Section 3 can ever mandate a stay sought by a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement.

The Court held that federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to review appeals from denials of stays sought by non-signatories and that Section 3 can mandate a stay where applicable state law allows the enforcement of an agreement by or against a non-signatory.   Justice Souter dissented in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Stevens.  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 »

Arbitration Fairness Act or Lawyers’ Full Employment Act?

April 18th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Legislative Developments, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on Arbitration Fairness Act or Lawyers’ Full Employment Act?

What Does the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 Have to Say About Commercial and Industry Arbitration Involving Sophisticated Parties? 

 Part V:  Summing Up

This is the final part of our multi-part post on the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 (the “Fairness Act”).  We did not address all aspects of the Fairness Act, but focused our attention on whether the Act may change the status quo in arbitrations involving only sophisticated, commercial entities. 

So what does the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 have to say about commercial and industry arbitration involving sophisiticated parties?  If you have been following our last six posts, you know the answer is not clear, and that the only thing that can be said with any degree of certainty is that the Fairness Act will result in litigation between sophisticated parties concerning the continuing viability of two fairly settled principles of arbitration law — severability and what we refer to as the Own Jurisdiction Rule.  That may be good news to some and bad news to others.  Continue Reading »

What does the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 Have to Say About Commercial and Industry Arbitration Involving Sophisticated Parties? (Part IV)

April 16th, 2009 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Legislative Developments, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on What does the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 Have to Say About Commercial and Industry Arbitration Involving Sophisticated Parties? (Part IV)

Will the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 Apply to Nondomestic Agreements and Awards Falling Under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards?

Introduction

In Parts I and II we discussed how the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 (the “Fairness Act”)  will likely lead to litigation concerning whether, and if so, to what extent, Proposed Section 2(c) abrogates: (a) the severability doctrine; and (b) the rule that arbitrators may determine their own jurisdiction if the parties clearly and unmistakably agree, with that determination subject only to deferential judicial review (the “Own Jurisdiction Rule”).    In Parts IIIA-C  we discussed two constructions of Proposed Section 2(c):  one that would abrogate severability and the Own Jurisdiction Rule in all cases falling under Chapter 1 of the FAA  (the “Broad Construction”); and one that would limit the scope of Proposed Section 2(c) to Chapter 1 cases where one of the parties contends that the arbitration agreement requires arbitration of a consumer, employment, franchise or statutory civil rights dispute (the “Narrow Construction”). 

In this Part IV we consider whether Proposed Section 2(c) of the Fairness Act applies to agreements and awards falling under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention” or the “Convention”), which are governed by Chapter 2 of the FAA.  While the matter is not entirely free from doubt, Proposed Section 2(c) of the Fairness Act will probably be construed not to apply to awards and agreements falling under the New York Convention.  Thus, the doctrine of severability and the Own Jurisdiction Rule will probably continue to apply in cases falling under FAA Chapter 2, even if courts adopt the Broad Construction of the Fairness Act in cases governed by Chapter 1.       Continue Reading »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »