A blog about Arbitration law, by Stephen Ware, a law professor at KU, in Lawrence, Kansas.
Search This Blog
Showing posts with label American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
The Nation Magazine Criticizes SCOTUS Arbitration Decisions
The title of the article is How Consumers Are Getting Screwed by Court-Enforced Arbitration
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Criticism of SCOTUS Arbitration Cases: Concepcion and Amex
U.S. Supreme Court rulings AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and American Express v. Italian Colors criticized by Lina Khan who writes that these "decisions culminate a thirty-year trend during which the judiciary, including initially some prominent liberal jurists, has moved to eliminate courts as a means for ordinary Americans to uphold their rights against companies. The result is a world where corporations can evade accountability and effectively skirt swaths of law, pushing their growing power over their consumers and employees past a tipping point."
Friday, May 23, 2014
Amex v. Italian Colors and the "Effectively Vindicate" Doctrine
Good article by St. Mary's Law Professor Ramona Lampley who writes that the Amex case calls into question the very existence of the “effective vindication doctrine.” She argues that to effectuate both the FAA and other statutes courts should compare the costs of arbitration to the costs of proceeding in litigation.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Was the Federal Arbitration Act Less About Enforcing Agreements and More About Procedural Reform?
Loyola Law Professor Hiro Aragaki is one of the most prolific arbitration scholars of the last few years. His latest effort, "The Federal Arbitration Act as Procedural Reform," is characteristically thorough and ambitious. It makes some good points but I won't quote them here because his draft asks that it not be quoted without permission.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Class Waiver Voided in Securities Arbitration
Since the Supreme Court's Concepcion and Italian Colors cases, courts have generally enforced arbitration agreement provisions requiring individual, rather than classwide, adjudication. In contrast, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ruled otherwise for securities arbitration.
Good lawyering by Pace Law Professor Jill Gross and Cincinnati Law Professor Barbara Black, who argued for this result in their article, Investor Protection Meets the Federal Arbitration Act, 1 Stan. J. Complex Litig. 1 (2012).
As Professor Gross explains at ADR Prof Blog, FINRA held that the Securities Exchange Act constituted a sufficient Congressional command to overcome the FAA’s mandate to courts to enforce arbitration agreements as written. Since the Exchange Act delegated to the SEC, which in turn delegated to FINRA, the authority to regulate broker-dealers’ arbitration agreements for the protection of investors, FINRA’s rules barring class action waivers and mandating that investors be able to bring class claims in court were enforceable [notwithstanding the FAA].
Good lawyering by Pace Law Professor Jill Gross and Cincinnati Law Professor Barbara Black, who argued for this result in their article, Investor Protection Meets the Federal Arbitration Act, 1 Stan. J. Complex Litig. 1 (2012).
As Professor Gross explains at ADR Prof Blog, FINRA held that the Securities Exchange Act constituted a sufficient Congressional command to overcome the FAA’s mandate to courts to enforce arbitration agreements as written. Since the Exchange Act delegated to the SEC, which in turn delegated to FINRA, the authority to regulate broker-dealers’ arbitration agreements for the protection of investors, FINRA’s rules barring class action waivers and mandating that investors be able to bring class claims in court were enforceable [notwithstanding the FAA].
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Collective Actions and Joinder of Parties in Arbitration
"Collective Actions and Joinder of Parties in Arbitration: Implications of DR Horton and Concepcion"
by UC Irvine Law Professor Catherine Fisk
Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2014, Forthcoming
Professor Fisk argues that employment agreements "to arbitrate individually are unenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act and the Norris LaGuardia Act." She argues that such agreements are not covered by the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Concepcion and Italian Colors to the extent they prohibit joinder of fewer parties than would be required to bring a large class action and, therefore, remain protected by labor law.Professor Fisk's article criticizes the Fifth Circuit’s Horton case and questions the practical wisdom of agreements requiring employees to pursue claims only as individuals. "State and federal courts universally allow liberal joinder of plaintiffs and defendants because it is more efficient and avoids some truly thorny issues about the preclusive effect of judgments."
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Mass Arbitration and Democratic Legitimacy
Mass Arbitration and Democratic Legitimacy
This very well written article by UC Davis Law Professor David Horton reviews Margaret Jane Radin’s "dazzling new book, Boilerplate."
Horton's Essay argues that Radin’s democratic degradation thesis is particularly compelling in the context of consumer and employment arbitration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)