Posts Tagged ‘Stolt Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp.’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

July 20th, 2010 Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

Part V.C

A.   Introduction

As was evident from Parts V.A and V.B (here and here), Stolt-Nielsen has dramatically changed the legal landscape on consolidated arbitration.  In this Part V.C. we explore the practical and strategic implications of that change.

B.   Reinsurers Will Likely Regain the Tactical Advantage They Had Pre-Bazzle   

For the last several years since Bazzle, cedents and reinsurers have treated consolidation of arbitration proceedings largely as a given.  Courts would usually delegate the consolidation question to the arbitrators, and, in turn, arbitrators would usually order consolidation.  After a while, consolidation became something that the parties frequently agreed upon, because in most cases there was little or no point in opposing it.  (See Part III, here.) 

The advent of large, consolidated proceedings redounded mostly to the cedents’ benefit.   In the consumer-class-arbitration context, the theme is usually the many against the one — the consumers versus the company.  But in reinsurance arbitration the tables are turned, and the theme is usually the one against the many – the cedent versus the reinsurers participating in one or more treaties.   

Consolidated arbitration allowed a cedent to, among other things, aggregate its claims against several reinsurers participating in a multi-year treaty program.  Without consolidated arbitration the dollar amounts associated with each claim might be too small to warrant a serious collection effort.  But the ability to aggregate ensured that even relatively small balances could be pursued. 

Collections were fairly straightforward, and reinsurers who might otherwise have multiple chances before multiple panels to assert certain defenses were forced to make their arguments before a single arbitration panel.    The ability of cedents to compel consolidated arbitration probably contributed to reinsurers settling certain claims that they might otherwise have disputed. 

Now that courts may be the gatekeepers when a party demands consolidated arbitration, and now that the Supreme Court has imposed some fairly strict standards for establishing consent to class or consolidated arbitration, reinsurers probably have regained the tactical advantage.  And the strategy adapted may well be of the “divide and conquer” variety – reinsurers may in appropriate cases force the cedent to commence multiple proceedings and, among other things, obtain multiple bites at the apple on their defenses before multiple panels.  Continue Reading »

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

July 14th, 2010 Arbitrability, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Reinsurance Arbitration, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

Part V.B

A.   Introduction

In Part V.A of our Stolt-Nielsen reinsurance-arbitration practice series (here), we said that after Stolt-Nielsen courts will likely get to decide in the first instance whether the parties consented to consolidated arbitration.  If we are correct, that will be a fundamental change because courts will presumably construe the terms of the parties’ contracts more strictly than many arbitrators might, and those constructions will be subject to appellate review. 

In this Part V.B we consider what a party will likely need to show to persuade a court to consolidate arbitrations, and explain why we believe that courts will not frequently order consolidation.  In Part V.C. we shall explain the strategic and practical implications of the changes that Stolt-Nielsen will likely bring about in consolidated reinsurance-arbitration practice.      Continue Reading »

The United States Supreme Court Adopts Severability Analysis in Rent-A-Center v. Jackson

June 21st, 2010 Arbitrability, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Practice and Procedure, Unconscionability, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on The United States Supreme Court Adopts Severability Analysis in Rent-A-Center v. Jackson

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court decided Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson, ___ U.S. ___, slip op. (June 21, 2010).  Rent-A-Center raised the question whether “a district court may decide a claim that an arbitration agreement is unconscionable, where the agreement explicitly assigns that decision to the arbitrator.”  The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had said “yes,” but the Supreme Court said “no.”

In a 5-4 opinion by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, joined in by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Associate Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr , the Court held that the employee had to arbitrate its claim that certain provisions of an arbitration agreement were allegedly unconscionable because the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability questions, and the employee did not specifically claim that that agreement was unconscionable.  The Court said that the parties’ clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate arbitrability was, as a matter of federal law, severable from the other provisions of the arbitration agreement, including the ones the employee said were unconscionable.  

Prior to the decision we had advocated in the Forum (here and here), and in our cover story published in the March 2010 issue of Alternatives to the High Cost of  Litigation (blogged here), that the Court should resolve the case in favor of Rent-A-Center using a severability analysis of sorts derived from Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. ___ (2006) and Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967).   And that’s exactly what happened, even though neither side advocated or addressed the severability argument before the Court, a point made by Associate Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion, which was  joined in by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.  See Dissenting Op. at 1.  (The district court’s analysis, however, which was reversed by the Ninth Circuit, was, according to the Court, consistent with the Buckeye Check Cashing and Prima Paint severability principle.  See Slip op. at 9.)  Continue Reading »

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

June 18th, 2010 Arbitrability, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Practice and Procedure, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

Part V.A

A.   Introduction

In this Part V.A of our consolidated-reinsurance-arbitration series, we delve into Stolt-Nielsen’s legal implications on consolidated reinsurance-arbitration practice, focusing on how courts are likely to decide the allocation-of-power question:  Who gets to decide whether the parties consented to consolidated arbitration?  In Part V.B we shall examine Stolt-Nielsen’s other specific legal and practical implications, focusing on what a party will likely need to show to obtain consolidated arbitration and how frequently consolidated arbitration is likely to be granted after Stolt-Nielsen.    

B.   Who Gets to Decide Whether the Parties Consented to Consolidated Arbitration?

Readers will recall from Part III (here) that courts interpreted Bazzle  as governing the allocation-of-power issue.  Now that the Court has said Bazzle never commanded a majority on that issue, and that it remains open, courts must reconsider it not only in the class-, but in the consolidated-arbitration context.   

Consolidated arbitrations, like class arbitrations, raise two types of questions:  Common-dispute and party-consent questions.  We think that courts will likely conclude that both are questions of arbitrability for the court to decide in the first instance, unless the parties clearly and unmistakably agree otherwise.   Arbitrators may play a role in resolving contractual ambiguities identified by the court.  

1.      Who Gets to Decide Common-Dispute Questions?

All consolidated-arbitration questions concern whether at least one arbitration agreement encompasses not only disputes concerning one, but all other contracts at issue.  We call this the “common-dispute” question.    

In some consolidated-arbitration disputes the “common dispute” question is the only one presented.  Suppose reinsurer R  enters into two treaties with cedent C, Contracts A and B, each of which incept on the same date and are in force for one year.  Contract A’s limits are $1 million per occurrence excess a $500,000 retention.  Contract B has per occurrence limits of $2 million excess of $1.5 million.  Both contain broad arbitration clauses under which the parties agreed to arbitrate “any dispute arising out of or relating to this contract.” Continue Reading »

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

June 8th, 2010 Arbitrability, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

Part IV

A.   Introduction

In Part I (here) we explained why the standard for challenging an award based on its outcome is important in reinsurance arbitration practice.  And, after briefly reviewing pre-Stolt-Nielsen law on outcome-based standards of review, we explained how the Court has established for itself and the lower courts a fairly searching standard of review.  Part II (here) explored the legal and practical implications of that standard of review.    

Part III (here) turned to the other key area that will likely change because of Stolt-Nielsen — consolidated reinsurance-arbitration practice — and discussed the state of consolidation law pre-Stolt-Nielsen.  This Part IV discusses Stolt-Nielsen’s rationale for finding that imposing class arbitration on parties whose agreements are silent on that point is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, and explores how the Court’s ruling may affect consolidated reinsurance-arbitration practice in general. 

B.   The Supreme Court’s Decides that Imposing Class Arbitration on Parties whose Contracts are Silent on that Score is Inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act

When we last left Stolt-Nielsen, the Court had determined  that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by issuing an award that was based on their own notions of public policy gleaned from other arbitral decisions imposing class arbitration in the face of silence.  When a court vacates an award it has to decide whether to remand the matter to the arbitrators, for Section 10(b) of the Federal Arbitration Act authorizes a court to “direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.”  The Court decided not to remand, because “there can be only one possible outcome on the facts,” that is, where the parties’ contracts are undisputedly silent on class arbitration, save for the parties’ agreement to a broad arbitration clause.   The Court then set about to explain why that was so.  Continue Reading »

International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution Newsletter Features Philip J. Loree Jr. Cover Story on Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp.

June 6th, 2010 Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Grounds for Vacatur, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution Newsletter Features Philip J. Loree Jr. Cover Story on Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp.

The June 2010 issue of Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, the excellent newsletter of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (”CPR”), featured as its cover story an article I wrote on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp.  The article is entitled “Stolt-Nielsen Delivers a New FAA Rule – And then Federalizes the Law of Contracts,” 28 Alternatives 124 (June 2010).   

In it I argue that the Stolt-Nielsen decision is both inexplicably broad and inexplicably narrow in scope, and may provide fodder for those who assert that Congress should enact the Fairness in Arbitration Act of 2009.  I also deconstruct the reasoning of the decision and explore some of its other practical and legal implications.   

Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation is a subscription-only publication. Subscription information is available at this page, as well as at the publisher’s, John Wiley & Sons’s,  website here.

I would like once again to take this opportunity to thank CPR, and Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives, for their kind assistance and support in featuring my article.   As I have said before, Russ is a keen,  intelligent and professional editor with whom it is a pleasure to work.

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

June 1st, 2010 Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Grounds for Vacatur, Labor Arbitration, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

Part II

A.   Introduction

In Part I (here) we explained why the standard for challenging an award based on its outcome is important in reinsurance arbitration practice.  And, after briefly reviewing pre-Stolt-Nielsen law on outcome-based standards of review, we explained how Stolt-Nielsen has established a fairly searching, standard of review.  This Part II explores the legal and practical implications of that standard of review.    

B.   Legal Implications of the Stolt-Nielsen Decision’s Manifest Disregard of the Agreement Standard of Review

1.  Courts May Interpret Stolt-Nielsen’s Outcome-Based Standard of Review Liberally

Reinsurance-  and other commercial-arbitration awards are now subject to the same standard of review as labor-law awards – and in Stolt-Nielsen, the Court applied that standard of review pretty liberally.  The Court has put to rest the notion that Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(4) vacatur is limited to questions concerning whether the arbitrators decided a matter falling within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement or submission.   The outcome of the arbitration is now subject to at least some, limited scrutiny. 

The focus will now be on whether the arbitrators interpreted, applied and enforced the contract, and applied applicable law or norms.  Express or implied reliance on extra-contractual considerations, such as public policy, may spoil an award, unless those extra-contractual considerations are grounded in applicable law.  Not heeding clear and unambiguous contract language, effectively deleting or disregarding contractual provisions or otherwise rewriting the contract may also subject the award to vacatur.  Continue Reading »

How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

May 25th, 2010 Arbitrability, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Grounds for Vacatur, Practice and Procedure, Reinsurance Arbitration, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on How Will Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. Change Reinsurance Arbitration Practice?

Part I

A.     Introduction 

Shortly before the United States Supreme Court decided Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., ___ U.S. ___, slip op. (April 27, 2010), we wrote about the implications the case might have on reinsurance arbitration practice.  (See our post here.)  But since then, you have not heard much from us, other than our brief report (here) about the Supreme Court vacating and remanding to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the American Express Merchants’ Litigation judgment for further consideration in light of Stolt-Nielsen.   One — but by no means the only — reason is that after Stolt-Nielsen was decided, we wrote a comprehensive article on it, which will be published in a subscription-only publication in June. 

But that article – while comprehensive in scope – is directed at folks interested in the Federal Arbitration Act in general, not necessarily those interested in reinsurance arbitration in particular.  And that’s what we want to cover in this multi-part series:  Stolt-Nielsen’s implications on reinsurance arbitration practice. 

Stolt-Nielsen affects reinsurance arbitration in two very important ways.   First, it has set a fairly liberal standard of review that now applies to commercial arbitration awards in cases where a party asserts that the arbitrators exceeded their powers under Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(4) because of the award’s outcome.  That, as we shall see, has all sorts of implications for persons involved in reinsurance arbitrations.

Second, it has changed the rules applicable to consolidated-reinsurance-arbitration practice – or at least it requires a wholesale reevaluation of those rules.  That, too, has a number of important implications for reinsurance-arbitration practice.   

This Part I of the series explains why the standard for challenging an award based on its outcome is important in reinsurance arbitration practice.  And, after briefly reviewing pre-Stolt-Nielsen law on outcome-based standards of review, it explains how Stolt-Nielsen has established for the lower courts a fairly searching standard of review.  Part II (here) will delve into what the implications of that standard of review will likely be. 

Part III (here) will provide the background necessary to understand how Stolt-Nielsen affects the law applicable to consolidated reinsurance arbitration.  Part IV (here) will delve into the details of how Stolt-Nielsen changes – or at least requires reconsideration of – the legal status quo in this area.  And Part V will discuss the implications of all of this.   

We do not set out to discuss the background of Stolt-Nielsen in any detail or to provide a play-by-play of how the Court decided the case.  If you are a regular reader you probably already know the background in detail, and our upcoming article does a pretty good job of mapping out the Court’s reasoning.  Instead, we focus our attention on the aspects of the decision that are relevant to the two key subjects of discussion. 

But before we delve into what Stolt-Nielsen has to say about the standard of review, we pause briefly to address why the standard of review applicable to an outcome-based challenge is so important in reinsurance and other forms of commercial arbitration.  Continue Reading »

United States Supreme Court Vacates Judgment in American Express Merchants’ Litigation

May 12th, 2010 Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on United States Supreme Court Vacates Judgment in American Express Merchants’ Litigation

The Supreme Court has issued a summary order in the American Express Merchants’ Litigation that suggests that it believes that Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. ___ , slip op. (2010)  renders class arbitration waivers enforceable despite public policy and other challenges.  Readers may recall that 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 federal public policy grounds in the circumstances presented by the case.  See Re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, 554 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2009), vacated and remanded sub. nom., American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 08-1473 (May 3, 2010). 

On May 3, 2010 the United States Supreme Court issued a summary order in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 08-1473 granting certiorari, summarily vacating the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and remanding it “for further consideration in light of” Stolt-Nielsen.   Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor “took no part in the consideration or decision” of the petition.   Italian Colors, No. 08-1473 (May 3, 2010) (summary disposition). 

It will be interesting to see what the Second Circuit does with the case on remand.

The United States Supreme Court Decides Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp.!

April 27th, 2010 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Grounds for Vacatur, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on The United States Supreme Court Decides Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp.!

As we predicted in prior posts, the United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., holding (5-3) that it was inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act to impose class arbitration on parties whose agreements were concededly silent on that point.  We are in the process of analyzing the decision (copy here), and intend to post a comprehensive, critical analysis soon.

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »