• Archives
• Categories
• Initial Strategy Discussion Offer
• Videos/Webinars

Posts Tagged ‘International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution’

Henry Schein Case: CPR Interviews Loree and Faulkner on Supreme Court’s Grant of Certiorari

June 24th, 2020 Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Arbitration Providers, Authority of Arbitrators, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on Henry Schein Case: CPR Interviews Loree and Faulkner on Supreme Court’s Grant of Certiorari

On Monday, June 15, 2020 the International Institute of Conflict Protection and Resolution (“CPR”) interviewed our good friend and colleague Richard D. Faulkner and Loree & Loree partner Philip J. Loree Jr. about the U.S. Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc., No. 19-963. To watch and listen to the video-conference interview, CLICK HERE.

The petition for and grant of certiorari arose out of the Fifth Circuit’s remand decision from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer & White Sales Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) (available at ) (“Schein I”).

If you’ve been following our posts about the Schein I and the remand decision, Archer and White Sales Inc. v. Henry Schein Inc., 935 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2019) (available at ) (“Schein II”), then you know that the arbitration proponent, Henry Schein, Inc. (“Schein”), petitioned for rehearing en banc of Schein II in fall 2019. (See here, here, here, and here.) In October 2019, while the petition for rehearing en banc was pending, Philip J. Loree Jr. published in Alternatives an article entitled “Back to Scotus’s Schein: A Separability Analysis that Resolves the Problem with the Fifth Circuit Remand,” 37 Alternatives 131 (October 2019).

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc on December 6, 2019. But Schein, a Melville, N.Y.-based dental equipment distributor, filed on January 30, 2020 a petition for certiorari, which asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s Schein II ruling.

The Petition asks the U.S. Supreme Court to determine “[w]hether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.” (Petition at I)

We wrote about the Petition in a post CPR Speaks, CPR’s blog, published on February 19, 2020, which was entitled “Schein Returns: Scotus’s Arbitration Remand Is Now Back at the Court.” And we also published in the April 2020 issue of CPR Alternatives an article about the Petition, which was entitled “Schein’s Remand Decision Goes Back to the Supreme Court. What’s Next?,” 38 Alternatives 54 (April 2020) (the “April 2020 Alternatives Article”). 

As noted in the April 2020 Alternatives Article, Schein’s filing of the petition for certiorari prompted Archer & White Sales Inc. (“Respondent” or “Archer & White”), a Plano, Texas, distributor, seller, and servicer of dental equipment, to file a conditional cross-petition (the “Cross Petition”), which in the event the Court granted the Petition asked the Court to determine “[w]hether the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability by incorporating the AAA Rules into their contract.”

The Cross-Petition ultimately prompted Rick Faulkner and Phil Loree Jr. to co-author a two-part article for Alternatives entitled “Schein’s Remand Decision: Should Scotus Review the Provider Rule Incorporation-by-Reference Issue?” Part I was published in the May 2020 issue of Alternatives. Part II was published in the June 2020 issue.

The two-part article argued that, if the Court granted the Petition, it should also grant the Cross-Petition, and address the issue whether the parties, by agreeing to arbitrate “in accordance with” the American Arbitration Assocation’s Commercial Arbitration Rules, clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability issues.

But as it turned out, the Court granted the Petition, but denied the Cross-Petition, one of the issues addressed in the interview.

Our good friend Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives, conducted the interview, and did a great job editing the articles Rick and I wrote about Schein for Alternatives. He also wrote for the CPR Speaks Blog an excellent summary of where things stand in light of the Court’s grant of the Petition. The video of the interview is embedded into that blog post. You can request copies of the articles Rick and Phil wrote about Schein by emailing CPR at alternatives@cpradr.org.  

We also shout-out CPR’s Tania Zamorsky, who, among other things, is the blog master of CPR Speaks, and who coordinated the effort to share copies of the video on CPR’s social media outlets.

Photo Acknowledgment

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

Share this Post on:

• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Email
• Pinterest
• Tumblr
• Twitter

GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC | International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution Interviews by Video Conference Philip J. Loree Jr. and Richard D. Faulkner

June 2nd, 2020 ADR Social Media, Arbitrability, Arbitrability - Equitable Estoppel, Arbitrability - Nonsignatories, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, CPR Speaks Blog of the CPR Institute, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, First Principle - Consent not Coercion, Gateway Disputes, Gateway Questions, International Arbitration, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), Loree & Loree, Practice and Procedure, Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Questions of Arbitrability, Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC | International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution Interviews by Video Conference Philip J. Loree Jr. and Richard D. Faulkner

On June 1, 2020 the United States Supreme Court issued its 9-0 decision in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC. In an opinion authored by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas the Court held that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards did not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories. Associate Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion.

On the same day the Court decided GE Power, 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”), interviewed our friend and colleague Richard D. Faulkner and Philip J. Loree Jr. about the case and what it means for practitioners.

You can watch the video-conference interview HERE.

Also on June 1, 2020 Russ also wrote an excellent post about GE Energy for CPR’s blog, CPR Speaks, which explains in detail the background of the case and the rationale for the Court’s opinion, as well as Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion. You can read that post HERE.

Contacting the Author

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

Philip J. Loree Jr. is a partner and founding member of Loree & Loree. He has 30 years of experience handling matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act and in representing a wide variety of clients in arbitration, litigation, and arbitration-related litigation.

Loree & Loree represents private and government-owned-or-controlled business organizations, and persons acting in their individual or representative capacities, and often serves as co-counsel, local counsel or legal adviser to other domestic, and international, law firms requiring assistance or support.

Loree & Loree was recently selected by Expertise.com out of a group of 1,763 persons or firms reviewed as one of Expertise.com’s top 18 “Arbitrators & Mediators” in New York City for 2019, and now for 2020. (See here and here.)

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.

Share this Post on:

• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Email
• Pinterest
• Tumblr
• Twitter

Delegation Agreements, Separability, Schein II, and the October 2019 Edition of CPR Alternatives

November 12th, 2019 Appellate Practice, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Contract Interpretation, Delegation Agreements, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Practice and Procedure, Separability, Severability, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

There have been a number of important cases decided in 2019 concerning the application and effect of “delegation provisions”—clear and unmistakable agreements to arbitrate arbitrability issues. Delegation provisions, which we’ll refer to as “delegation agreements,” are not a recent phenomenon, and are quite common, especially in administered arbitration, where consent to applicable arbitration rules typically includes clear and unmistakable consent to arbitrate arbitrability. But there’s been a good deal of judicial controversy this year over whether delegation agreements should, in certain circumstances, be given the full force and effect that they deserve.  

We think that delegation provisions should ordinarily be enforced as written and according to their terms. When Courts interpret and apply delegation agreements, they should, consistent with Rent-a-Center West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010), consider those agreements to be separate and independent from the arbitration agreements in which they are contained.

Much of the controversy has centered on whether terms of the arbitration agreement should define or circumscribe the scope of the delegation agreement and even effectively negate it. Consequently, certain courts have conflated the question of who gets to decide whether an issue is arbitrable with the separate question of what the outcome of the arbitrability dispute should be, irrespective of who decides it. 

The SCOTUS Schein Decision and The Fifth Circuit’s Schein II Decision on Remand

The first significant delegation-agreement development this year came on

Continue Reading »

Share this Post on:

• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Email
• Pinterest
• Tumblr
• Twitter

New Clear and Unmistakable Outcome Exception to the Old Clear and Unmistakable Rule? (Part II)

August 15th, 2019 Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Class Arbitration Waivers, Clause Construction Award, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, FINRA Arbitration, First Options Reverse Presumption of Arbitrability, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Manifest Disregard of the Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

Part I of this post discussed how the Second and Fifth Circuits, in  Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Bucsek, ___ F.3d ___, No. 17-881, slip op. (2d Cir. Mar. 22, 2019), and 20/20 Comms. Inc. v. Lennox Crawford, ___ F.3d ___, No. 18-10260 (5th Cir. July 22, 2019), suggest a trend toward what might (tongue-in-cheek) be called a “Clear and Unmistakable Outcome Exception” to the First Options Reverse Presumption of Arbitrability (a/k/a the “Clear and Unmistakable Rule”).

Under this Clear and Unmistakable Outcome Exception to the Clear and Unmistakable Rule, courts consider the merits of an underlying arbitrability issue as part of their analysis of whether the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability issues.

But the Clear and Unmistakable Outcome Exception runs directly counter to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Schein v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 524 (January 8, 2019), and thus contravenes the Federal Arbitration Act as interpreted by Schein. 139 S. Ct. at 527-28, 529-31.

This Part II analyzes and discusses how Met Life and 20/20 Comm. effectively made an end run around Schein and considers what might have motivated those Courts to rule as they did.

Making an End Run Around Schein?

When, prior to 20/20 Comm. we wrote about Met Life, we said it “an important decision because it means in future cases where parties have not expressly agreed to arbitrate arbitrability questions, but have agreed to a very broad arbitration agreement, the question whether the parties’ have nevertheless clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability questions may turn, at least in part, on an analysis of the merits of the arbitrability question presented.” (See here. )

But after the Fifth Circuit decided 20/20 Comm. this July, in comments we made to Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives, the Newsletter of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (“CPR”)—which were reproduced with our consent in Mr. Zhan Tze’s CPR Speaks blog article about 20/20 Comm. (here)—we expressed the belief that the Fifth Circuit was (whether intentionally or unintentionally) making an end run around Schein, effectively creating an exception to the Clear and Unmistakable Rule.

After analyzing 20/20 Comm. and comparing it to the Second Circuit’s Met Life decision, we concluded that the Second Circuit’s decision also ran counter to Schein.

Schein’s Abrogation of the “Wholly Groundless Exception” to the Clear and Unmistakable Rule

In Schein the U.S. Supreme Court abrogated the so-called “wholly groundless exception” to the Clear and Unmistakable Rule. Prior to Schein certain courts, including the Fifth Circuit, held that even when parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability questions, courts could effectively circumvent the parties’ agreement and decide for itself arbitrability challenges that it determined were “wholly groundless.”  

The rationale Schein used to jettison the “wholly groundless exception” to the Clear and Unmistakable Rule is incompatible with the rationales the Second and Fifth Circuit used to support their decisions in Met Life and 20/20 Comm.

Under FAA Section 2, the Schein Court explained, “arbitration is a matter of contract, and courts must enforce arbitration contracts according to their terms.” Schein, 139 S. Ct. at 529 (citation omitted). When those contracts delegate arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, “a court may not override the contract[,]” and has “no power to decide the arbitrability issue.” 139 S. Ct. at 529. That is so even where a Court “thinks that the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a particular dispute is wholly groundless.” 139 S. Ct. at 529.

Schein explained that its conclusion was supported not only by the FAA’s text, but also by U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Citing and quoting cases decided under Section 301 of the Labor Management and Relations Act, the Court explained that courts may not “‘rule on the potential merits of the underlying’ claim that is assigned by contract to an arbitrator, ‘even if it appears to the court to be frivolous[,]’” and that “[a] court has “‘no business weighing the merits of the grievance’” because the “‘agreement is to submit all grievances to arbitration, not merely those which the court will deem meritorious.’” 139 S. Ct. at 529 (quoting AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 649–650 (1986) and Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 568 (1960)).

This “principle,” said the Schein Court, “applies with equal force to the threshold issue of arbitrability[]”—for “[j]ust as a court may not decide a merits question that the parties have delegated to an arbitrator, a court may not decide an arbitrability question that the parties have delegated to an arbitrator.” 139 S. Ct. at 530.

Exception to Clear and Unmistakable Rule? Why the Second and Fifth Circuit Decisions Conflict with Schein

Continue Reading »

Share this Post on:

• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Email
• Pinterest
• Tumblr
• Twitter

Does a Clear and Unmistakable Delegation Provision Require the Parties to Arbitrate Disputes About the Existence of an Arbitration Agreement?

April 27th, 2019 Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration and Mediation FAQs, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Authority of Arbitrators, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories, Separability, Severability, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on Does a Clear and Unmistakable Delegation Provision Require the Parties to Arbitrate Disputes About the Existence of an Arbitration Agreement?

Parties can, and frequently do, agree to include in their contract a so-called
“Delegation Provision” that clearly and unmistakably delegates to the arbitrators questions of arbitrability. (See, e.g., Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum posts here, here, here, and here.) Questions of arbitrability include questions concerning: (a) the scope of an arbitration agreement, that is, whether the parties agreed to arbitrate particular disputes or categories of disputes; (b) the validity or enforceability of an arbitration agreement “upon upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract[,]” 9 U.S.C. § 2; or (c) whether an arbitration agreement has been formed or concluded, that is, whether an arbitration agreement exists in the first place. (See Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum post here.)

Typically, a “delegation provision” states in clear and unmistakable terms that arbitrability questions are to be decided by the arbitrators. For example, by making part of their contract Rule 8.1 of the 2018 version of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR)’s Non-administered Arbitration Rules, parties agree to the following broad Delegation Provision:

Rule 8: Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal

8.1 The Tribunal shall have the power to hear and determine challenges to its jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement. This authority extends to jurisdictional challenges with respect to both the subject matter of the dispute and the parties to the arbitration.

CPR Non-Administered Arbitration Rule 8.1 (2018) (emphasis added).

Who Gets to Decide whether the Parties Entered into a Delegation Provision?

Suppose that Agent A, without the knowledge and consent of Party A, purports to bind Party A to a written contract with Party B, which includes a broad arbitration agreement that expressly incorporates by reference, and makes part of the purported contract, the 2018 version of CPR’s Non-administered Arbitration Rules. Party B and Agent A deal with each other concerning the subject matter of the contract, and a dispute arises.

Party B demands arbitration of the dispute, and serves an arbitration demand on Party A, who is understandably surprised at being named a party in an arbitration proceeding concerning a purported agreement of which it had no knowledge, objects to the arbitration demand, and Party B commences an action to compel arbitration.

In the proceeding to compel arbitration, Party A argues that Agent A had no actual or apparent authority to bind it to the agreement that contained the arbitration agreement. Party B responds that because the Delegation Clause made part of the agreement requires arbitration of issues concerning the “existence” of the arbitration agreement, Party A must arbitrate the issue of whether Agent A had authority to bind it to the agreement.

Must Party A arbitrate the issue whether Agent A had authority to bind it to the agreement because the agreement contains a Delegation Provision? If the only consideration were the text of Rule 8.1, then the answer would be “yes.”

Continue Reading »

Share this Post on:

• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Email
• Pinterest
• Tumblr
• Twitter

• Search for:

• Subscribe to Blog via Email

  Enter your email address to subscribe to The Arbitration Law Forum and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  Email Address

  Subscribe

  Join 986 other subscribers

• Recent Posts

  • Overturning Arbitration Awards based on Clear Mistakes of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfacts: Some Further Thoughts (Part IV): Will the Seventh Circuit Reverse the UpHealth District Court? November 14, 2024
  • International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) Interviews Professor Angela Downes, Richard D. Faulkner, and Philip J. Loree Jr. about the Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment Ninth Circuit Mass Arbitration Decision November 13, 2024
  • Overturning Arbitration Awards based on Clear Mistakes of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfacts: Some Further Thoughts (Part III) November 12, 2024

• Top Posts & Pages

  • 
    Weighing the “Jurisdictional Anchor”: Post-Badgerow Second Circuit Subject Matter Jurisdiction Requirements for Applications to Confirm, Modify, or Vacate Arbitration Awards
  • 
    Arbitration Law FAQ Guide: Challenging Arbitration Awards under the Federal Arbitration Act
  • 
    Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter—SCOTUS Reaffirms FAA Section 10(a)(4) Manifest Disregard of the Agreement Outcome Review Standard and Elaborates on Its Scope: Part II.A
  • 
    Stay of Litigation | Waiver of Arbitration | The Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration Act FAQ Guide III | Pre-Award Litigation under Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act | Litigating Gateway Disputes | The Nuts and Bolts of Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Practice under Sections 2, 3, and 4 (Part I)
  • 
    International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) Interviews Professor Angela Downes, Richard D. Faulkner, and Philip J. Loree Jr. about the United States Supreme Court Certiorari Grant in Coinbase II Delegation Agreement Dispute

• Follow Philip J. Loree Jr. on Twitter

  My Tweets

• Categories

  Categories Select Category Absolute Pollution Exclusions Access to Records Accumulation of Loss ADR Social Media Aggregate Cover Allocation Allocation of Settlements American Arbitration Association Amount in Controversy and Podcasts Anti-Arbitration Statutes Anti-Stacking Provisions Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Practice Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act Application to Appoint Arbitrator Application to Compel Arbitration Application to Confirm Application to Enforce Arbitral Summons Application to Stay Arbitration Application to Stay Litigation Application to Vacate Appraisal Arbitrability Arbitrability – Equitable Estoppel Arbitrability – Nonsignatories Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement Arbitral Subpoenas Arbitration Agreement Invalid Arbitration Agreements Arbitration and Mediation FAQs Arbitration as a Matter of Consent Arbitration Fees Arbitration Law Arbitration Practice and Procedure Arbitration Provider Rules Arbitration Providers Arbitration Risks Arbitrator Selection and Qualification Provisions Arbitrator Vacancy Arbitrator-Imposed Claims Protocols Asbestos-Related Claims Association of Insurance and Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC) Attorney Fee Shifting Attorney Fees and Sanctions Authority of Arbitrators Award Confirmed Award Fails to Draw Essence from the Agreement Award Irrational Award Procured by Fraud and Corruption Award Vacated Awards Bad Faith Businessperson’s FAQ Guide to the Federal Arbitration Act California State Courts California Supreme Court Captive Insurance Companies Certificate or Treaty Limits Challenging Arbitration Agreements Challenging Arbitration Awards Charles Bennett Choice-of-Law Provisions Claims Guidelines and Procedures Claims Handling Claims Spot Class Action Arbitration Class Action Waivers Class Arbitration – Class Certification Awards Class Arbitration Waivers Clause Construction Award Clear and Unmistakable Rule Collateral Requirements for Unauthorized Reinsurance Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group Commercial Impracticability Confirm Award | Attorney Fees Confirm Award | Exceeding Powers Confirm Award | Manifest Disregard of the Law Confirmation of Awards Conflict between Arbitration Clause and Another Clause Conflict of Laws Conflict-of-Law Rules Consent to Class Arbitration Consent to Confirmation Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings Construction Industry Arbitration Contract Defenses Contract Interpretation Contract Interpretation Rules Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Corruption in the Arbitrators Corruption or Undue Means COVID-19 Considerations COVID-19 Contract Defenses CPLR Article 75 CPR Alternatives CPR Speaks Blog of the CPR Institute CPR Video Interviews Death of Arbitrator Default Award Definition of Occurrence Delegation Agreements Dispute Risk – Frequency and Severity Diversity Jurisdiction Drafting Arbitration Agreements Drafting Mediation Agreements Employment Arbitration Enforcing Arbitration Agreements English Law Environmental Contamination Claims Equal Footing Principle ERISA Estoppel Ethics Events Evident Partiality Exceeding Powers Exemption from FAA Existence of Arbitration Agreement FAA Chapter 1 FAA Chapter 2 FAA Chapter 3 FAA Preemption of State Law FAA Section 1 FAA Section 10 FAA Section 11 FAA Section 16 FAA Section 2 FAA Section 3 FAA Section 4 FAA Section 9 FAA Transportation Worker Exemption Federal Arbitration Act 202 Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure Federal Arbitration Act Section 1 Federal Arbitration Act Section 10 Federal Arbitration Act Section 11 Federal Arbitration Act Section 12 Federal Arbitration Act Section 2 Federal Arbitration Act Section 201 Federal Arbitration Act Section 202 Federal Arbitration Act Section 203 Federal Arbitration Act Section 204 Federal Arbitration Act Section 207 Federal Arbitration Act Section 3 Federal Arbitration Act Section 4 Federal Arbitration Act Section 5 Federal Arbitration Act Section 7 Federal Arbitration Act Section 9 Federal Courts Federal Policy in Favor of Arbitration Federal Question Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Feed Final Awards FINRA Arbitration First Department First Options Reverse Presumption of Arbitrability First Principle – Consent not Coercion Follow-the-Settlements/Follow-the Fortunes Foreign Arbitration Awards Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Formation of Arbitration Agreement Forum Non Conveniens Forum Selection Agreements Fraud Fraud or Undue Means Functus Officio Gateway Disputes Gateway Questions General Grounds for Modifying or Correcting Award Grounds for Vacatur Guest Posts Honorable Engagement House of Lords Imperfectly Executed Award or Powers Injunctions in Aid of Arbitration Insolvency Proceedings Insurance Contracts Insurance Coverage Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration Internal Controls International Arbitration International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) International Judicial Assistance Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards Jurisdiction Clause Labor Arbitration Labor Law Laches Late Notice Lead Paint Claims Legal Ethics Legislative Developments Life Reinsurance LMRA Section 301 LMRA Section 301(a) London Market Long-Tail Claims Look Through Loree & Loree Loree & Loree Arbitration-Law Blogs Loree and Faulkner Interviews Louisiana Supreme Court Making Decisions about Arbitration Managing Dispute Risks Manifest Disregard of the Agreement Manifest Disregard of the Law Marine Products Rule Mass Arbitration Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court McCarran-Ferguson Act Mediation Mediation Agreements Michigan State Courts Modify or Correct Award Moses Cone Principle Motion to Compel Arbitration MPPAA Arbitration Negotiation New Era ADR New Jersey State Courts New York Arbitration Law (CPLR Article 75) New York Convention New York County New York Court of Appeals New York State Courts Noncumulation Clauses Nuts & Bolts Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration Nuts & Bolts: Reinsurance or Modify Award Outcome Review Outcome Risk Panama Convention Party-Appointed Arbitrators Personal Jurisdiction Petition or Application to Confirm Award Petition to Compel Arbitration Petition to Enforce Arbitral Summons Petition to Modify Award Petition to Vacate Award Philip J. Loree Jr. Policy Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation Practice and Procedure Pre-Answer Security Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation Preclusive Effect of Awards Prejudice Presumption of Arbitrability Procedural Arbitrability Procedural Misconduct Professor Angela Downes Professor Downes Property Insurance Public Policy Questions of Arbitrability Re/Insurance Mediation Institute Reinsurance Allocation Reinsurance Arbitration Reinsurance Claims Reinsurance Claims Group Reinsurance Contracts Reinsurance Litigation Reinsurance Mediation Reinsurance Social Media Repeat Players Res Judicata or Claim Preclusion Rescission and Reformation Retrospectively-Rated Premium Contracts Richard D. Faulkner Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories Russ Bleemer Second Department Section 1 Section 10 Section 11 Section 12 Section 16 Section 1782 Section 2 Section 3 Stay of Litigation Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 9 Securities Arbitration Security Requirements Separability Service of Process Severability Small and Medium-Sized Business Arbitration Risk Small Business B-2-B Arbitration Small Business B-2-B Mediation South Carolina Supreme Court Standard of Review State Arbitration Law State Arbitration Statutes State Courts Statute of Limitations Statutory Interpretation and Construction Stay of Arbitration Stay of Litigation Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration Stay Pending Appeal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Subpoenas Subscribe Substantive Arbitrability Sudden and Accidental Pollution Exclusions Texas Supreme Court Textualism The Arbitration Law Forum The Federalist Society The Loree Law Firm Time Limit for Vacating, Modifying, or Correcting Award Timing and Number of Occurrences Trigger of Coverage Twitter U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Unauthorized Reinsurance Uncategorized Unconscionability Uniform Commercial Code Article 2 United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit United States District Court for the District of Columbia United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois United States District Court for the Southern District of California United States District Court for the Southern District of New York United States Supreme Court Utmost Good Faith Vacate Vacate Award | 10(a)(2) Vacate Award | 10(a)(4) Vacate Award | Arbitrability Vacate Award | Attorney Fees Vacate Award | Attorney’s Fees Vacate Award | Corruption Vacate Award | Evident Partiality Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers Vacate Award | Excess of Powers Vacate Award | Existence of Arbitration Agreement Vacate Award | Fraud Vacate Award | Manifest Disregard of the Law Vacate Award | Public Policy Vacatur Vacatur for Conceded Nonfact or Clear Mistake of Historical Fact Venue Video Conference Hearings Waiver of Arbitration

• Archives

  Archives Select Month November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 January 2023 August 2022 July 2022 February 2022 December 2021 November 2021 September 2021 August 2021 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 November 2019 October 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 July 2017 January 2017 November 2016 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 November 2013 October 2013 August 2013 July 2013 March 2013 September 2011 August 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009

• Blogroll

  • ADR Toolbox
  • ArbitrationUSA
  • CPR Speaks
  • Disputing Blog
  • Positively Neutral

• Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

  Please see also the information and links set forth on each footer page of the The Loree Law Firm website of which this blog is a part (http://www.loreelawfirm.com), and in the disclaimer that appears in the bottom right corner of each post page of this blog.

Disclaimer:
The content of this blog is not intended to be legal advice and should not be construed as such. The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Loree Law Firm or any of its current or former clients.