Harvard Law Seminar on "Forced Arbitration"

The instructor, Deepak Gupta, is a principal at Gupta Wessler PLLC, an appellate boutique in Washington, DC, and a former Senior Counsel at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. "He has represented consumers, workers, and small merchants in key cases on forced arbitration before the U.S. Supreme Court, including AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and American Express v. Italian Colors" according to the Harvard course description.

For my arguments against the phrase "forced arbitration", see p.43 of The Centrist Case for Enforcing Adhesive Arbitration Agreements, 23 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 29 (2017)

Shareholders Lawsuits and Arbitration Clauses in Corporate Charters

Should the Securities and Exchange Commission permit arbitration clauses in a public company's charter? A member of the SEC recently said yes.

"For shareholder lawsuits, companies can come to us to ask for relief to put in mandatory arbitration into their charters," said Michael Piwowar. "I would encourage companies to come and talk to us about that."

As Reuters reports, "The issue garnered attention in 2012, when the SEC pressured private equity firm Carlyle Group L.P. to drop a mandatory arbitration requirement before the regulator would sign off on its IPO plans."

Piwowar's use of the word "mandatory" cuts against his position because, as the saying goes, "arbitration is a matter of contract," and contracts are consensual, not mandatory. Piwowar's position should rest of the view that a corporate charter is contractual so becoming a shareholder is consent to (agreeing to a contract that provides for) arbitration of disputes. In contrast, making arbitration "mandatory" sounds like "forcing" shareholders to arbitrate, which is likely what Piwowar's opponents will argue.

Congressional Hearing on Arbitration

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled "The Federal Arbitration Act and Access to Justice: Will Recent Supreme Court Decisions Undermine the Rights of Consumers, Workers, and Small Businesses?"   Video of the hearing is here.   Senator Al Franken begins the hearing with a strongly negative view toward arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts of adhesion.  While I disagree with much of it, he is a very intelligent person, which showed in his comedy career and shows in the senate.

The witnesses at this hearing include several very impressive and capable people:

Leslie Overton

Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice

Alan Carlson

Owner
Italian Colors Restaurant
Oakland, CA

Myriam Gilles

Professor of Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Vildan Teske

Partner
Crowder, Teske, Katz, & Micko, PLLP
Minneapolis, MN

Archis A. Parasharami

Partner & Co-Chair, Consumer Litigation & Class Actions practice
Mayer Brown LLP
Washington, DC

Peter Bowman Rutledge

Associate Dean for Faculty Development
Herman E. Talmadge Chair of Law
University of Georgia School of Law

UNLV Law Prof. Jean Sternlight's written testimony is here.

Parody of Arbitration Decision by Supreme Court Justice Scalia

Thanks to Professor Jean Sternlight for spreading the word about what she describes as a "brilliant but depressing parody Scalia decision finding that an employee is required to arbitrate all claims although the employer did not expressly impose arbitration on the employee."

The "opinion" says "We hold both that the failure to refer to arbitration in haec verba does not bar a finding of an agreement to arbitrate under the Federal Arbitration Act, and that arbitration is so much the preferred method of dispute resolution under the FAA that, for all contracts within its ambit, arbitration should be presumptively the sole method of resolving disputes that arise under that contract. Only when the parties have expressly and unmistakably negated arbitration, and insisted on judicial resolution, should a court refuse to order arbitration." 

Points for guessing which real opinions by J. Scalia this is parodying?