We review four major decisions relating to U.S. arbitration that have been decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court or have been granted certiorari.[1]
In
Continue Reading A Review of Leading Developments in U.S. CourtsCan An International Arbitration Award Be Vacated When The Seat Of Arbitration Is The US Or US Law Is The Substantive Law?
Under existing precedent in the 11th Circuit, which includes Florida, federal courts cannot overturn international arbitration awards on the ground that the arbitrators “exceeded their powers,” a frequently invoked
Continue Reading Can An International Arbitration Award Be Vacated When The Seat Of Arbitration Is The US Or US Law Is The Substantive Law?Does An Appeal Of A District Court’s Denial Of A Motion To Compel Arbitration Automatically Stay The Case?
The appeals courts for the 3rd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits have ruled that a non-frivolous appeal of
Continue Reading Does An Appeal Of A District Court’s Denial Of A Motion To Compel Arbitration Automatically Stay The Case?Ninth Circuit Rules that Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction to Enforce SummonsesIssued by Arbitrators in International Arbitrations under the New York Convention
Reversing a district court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently ruled that federal district courts have jurisdiction to enforce a summons issued by arbitrators in
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rules that Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction to Enforce SummonsesIssued by Arbitrators in International Arbitrations under the New York ConventionThe Supreme Court Slams the Door on the Use of Federal Courts to Obtain Discovery in Aid of Foreign and International Arbitrations Before Private, Non-Governmental Adjudicatory Bodies
The United States Supreme Court this week resolved an important issue regarding international arbitrations by ruling that, contrary to what at least two appellate courts had previously ruled, a U.S.
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Slams the Door on the Use of Federal Courts to Obtain Discovery in Aid of Foreign and International Arbitrations Before Private, Non-Governmental Adjudicatory BodiesU.S. Supreme Court Rules That Petitions to Confirm or Vacate Arbitration Awards Cannot Be Brought In Federal Court Simply Because the Underlying Dispute Involves a Federal Question
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, unlike petitions to compel arbitration, petitions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award cannot be brought in federal court simply because the underlying
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Petitions to Confirm or Vacate Arbitration Awards Cannot Be Brought In Federal Court Simply Because the Underlying Dispute Involves a Federal Question
Challenging and Enforcing Domestic and International Arbitral Awards
Sarah Biser and Craig Tractenberg presented a webinar on April 7, 2022 at 12 pm entitled “Challenging and Enforcing Domestic and International Arbitral Awards.” Contact us at sbiser@foxrothschild.com and/or ctractenberg@foxrothschild.com
Continue Reading Challenging and Enforcing Domestic and International Arbitral Awards
Overview of International Litigation and Arbitration
Sarah Biser and Craig Tractenberg will be presenting a webinar on hop topics on international litigation and arbitration on thursday, November 4, 2021 at 12 pm eastern.. You can register
Continue Reading Overview of International Litigation and Arbitration
Oksana Wright Will Be Speaking At XIII ABA Conference on the Resolution of CIS-Related Business Disputes in Moscow, Russia
International Arbitration and Cross-Border Insolvency – Common Scenarios Encountered by Practitioners
When:
Hosted By:
ABA International Law Section and Russian Arbitration Association
People:
Delaware Federal Court Must Abide By The Parties Decision To Delegate The Arbitrability Of The Dispute To The Arbitrator Even If The Arbitration Agreement Is Irrelevant To The Dispute
The topic of whether an arbitrator or a court should decide the question of arbitrability has been the subject of long-standing debate among international scholars and practitioners. In First Options of Chicago Inc. v. Kaplan, the Supreme Court stated the general rule that “[c]ourts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is ‘clear and unmistakabl[e]’ evidence that they did so.” 514 U.S. 938. But what constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence of the intent to arbitrate arbitrability?
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently provided an example of an arbitration clause that contains such “clear and unmistakable” evidence to delegate questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. In Nidec Corporation v. Seagate Technology LLC, Civ. Action No. 21-52 (D. Del. July 20, 2021), Nidec Corporation (“Nidec”) brought a patent infringement action against Seagate Technology LLC (“Seagate”) and other defendants. Seagate, relying on the arbitration clause in the parties’ agreement, moved to compel arbitration. Seagate argued that the arbitration clause requires the Court to delegate to an arbitrator the decision whether the agreement applies to the claims at issue. Seagate relied on the following language in the agreement:
If the parties are unable to resolve any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including the formation, interpretation, breach or termination thereof, whether the dispute, controversy or claim asserted is able to be arbitrated … then either party will have the option to request that the dispute be finally determined by arbitration in accordance with the JAMS International Arbitration Rules.
Nidec argued that it only agreed to arbitrate disputes that arise under the agreement and Seagate should not be allowed to compel arbitration by declaring that each dispute between the parties is a dispute arising out of or relating to the agreement.
Continue Reading Delaware Federal Court Must Abide By The Parties Decision To Delegate The Arbitrability Of The Dispute To The Arbitrator Even If The Arbitration Agreement Is Irrelevant To The Dispute