California continued its ongoing debate on arbitrations and class actions in July when its Supreme Court held that in some cases an arbitrator, not the court, must decide whether an arbitration agreement permits class arbitration. This case is important because it rejects a universal rule on who should be the decision-maker in favor of a case-by-case analysis. In Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc., No. S220812 (Cal. July 28, 2016), the California Supreme Court did not address the…
In Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc., No. 14-1502 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 2016), the Tenth Circuit upheld the denial of…
In its decision in Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Scout Petroleum, LLC, 809 F. 3d 746 (3d Cir. 2016),…
Terra Holding GmbH and Terra Handels-und Speditionsgesellschaft mbH v. Unitrans International, Inc., No. 14-cv-1788 (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2015), the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia compelled arbitration of the question of arbitrability where the arbitration agreement incorporated Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration rules that delegated that decision to the arbitrators. Plaintiffs, Terra Holding GmbH and Terra Handels-und Speditionsgesellschaft mbH (both German entities), sued Defendant, Unitrans International, Inc. (a U.S. corporation), for, inter…
Arbitrability: The Limits of Arbitration on 7 April 2016, 12.00-2.00pm Venue: CCLS, room 3.1, 67-69 Lincoln’s Inn Fields,…
We are pleased to announce that the new edition of The Baker & McKenzie International Arbitration Yearbook is now available.…
In Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit held that express incorporation of American Arbitration Association rules in an arbitration clause constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the contracting parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability. Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 130 S. Ct. 2772 (2010), the Ninth Circuit held that incorporation of such rules was a delegation provision severable from the…
On August 4, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in Chevron Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador, 795 F.3d 200…
In a July 28, 2015 decision in Katz v. Cellco Partnership, dba Verizon Wireless, 794 F.3d 341 (2d Cir. 2015),…
The Court of Appeal of Singapore has confirmed that minority shareholder claims under s. 216 of the Singapore Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006) (the Companies Act) are arbitrable, and that there is generally a presumption that all claims (including those arising under statute) which fall within an arbitration clause are arbitrable (Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2015] SGCA 57). The Court of Appeal also held that the standard…