The Massachusetts Arbitration Act ("MAA") provides for judicial review and vacation of arbitration awards, under the specific and limited circumstances enumerated at G.L. c. 251, § 12. These limitations acknowledge the public policy goals that encourage private, binding arbitration of disputes in general. "Absent fraud," the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held, "errors of law or fact are not sufficient grounds to set aside an award... An arbitrator's result may be wrong; it may appear unsupported; it may appear poorly reasoned; it may appear foolish. Yet, it may not be subject to court interference." Lynn v. Thompson.
International arbitration has many benefits for banking and finance disputes, and parties to those disputes are increasingly recognizing those advantages. While banks and financial institutions have traditionally used courts and other judicial forums to resolve disputes, including international disputes, increasing numbers of cases are being litigated and resolved through international arbitration.
The United States Supreme Court held in the unanimous decision of New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira earlier this year that the Federal Arbitration Act's exclusion as to contracts of employment necessitated that the parties' arbitration clause be overridden and the plaintiff be allowed to pursue his lawsuit in the Massachusetts federal courts.
It was bound to happen eventually. Maybe your company just went global or maybe they've been working internationally for years. But eventually, whether through some mistake in translation in an international contract, some global or local change in circumstances, or just picking a poor foreign partner, a dispute has arisen over some international transaction.
A judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has dismissed a case against the International Centre for Dispute Resolution on the basis of arbitral immunity. The holding in Wartsila North America, Inc., et al v. International Centre for Dispute Resolution, et al., 2018 WL 3870015 (S.D. Tex. 2018), C.A. No. H-18-1531, was based in large part on precedent from the First Circuit.
In the United States, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") provides the rules that govern most arbitrations, and is binding on both state and federal courts. See 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. But the FAA is "something of an anomaly" in federal legislation as it "bestow[s] no federal jurisdiction." Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 582 (2008). So motions to compel arbitration or enforcement proceedings must be brought in state courts unless there is some independent basis to assert jurisdiction (such as federal diversity jurisdiction).
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will be the next body to weigh in on a dispute between Del Monte International GmbH ("Del Monte") and Inversions y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. ("INPROTSA") over an exclusive sales agreement for pineapples. The case has been appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and the appeal raises issues of the finality of international arbitration awards.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017, President Donald Trump signed legislation repealing an anti-arbitration rule that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") had promulgated in early July. Repeal of the CFPB rule was welcomed by representatives of the financial services industry.
The American Arbitration Association ("AAA") has announced on its website that it is offering a "Streamlined Three-Arbitrator Panel Option" for large, complex cases. It's a fresh idea that is worthy of parties' consideration in cases where the rules (see Section L-2(a)) or the parties' agreement requires a panel of three arbitrators to hear and decide the case. The Streamlined Three-Arbitrator Panel Option allows a single arbitrator to work with the parties in moving the case through the preliminary and discovery stages. A full panel participates in the evidentiary hearing and in rendering the final award.
Cost can be a deterrent when parties are considering whether to mediate a complex business dispute. Mediation is an excellent opportunity to settle a case in advance of costly trial preparation, but mediation requires parties to pay for both a mediator and their attorneys' time to prepare for and attend the mediation. Are those costs recoverable if mediation is unsuccessful and findings at trial require the losing party to pay the winning party's attorneys' fees and costs? According to recent federal case law in the District of Massachusetts, the answer to that question depends on the basis of the fee-shifting award.
The Supreme Court may soon be taking on an issue that has divided several of the federal circuit courts. The circuits disagree on a fundamental question that relates to arbitration and labor law - whether an agreement to arbitrate is valid when an employee waives the right to bring claims against an employer as part of a class or collective. In other words, can an employee be barred from being part of a class action lawsuit where there is an agreement to arbitrate and a waiver of the right to pursue collective claims?
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently created a schism between the Circuits that may lead to the Supreme Court's intervention on an important issue: whether an employer may bar employees from bringing class action claims by requiring claims to be arbitrated. The 7th Circuit, in deciding that employers cannot do so, has diverged from the 5th Circuit, leaving a circuit split that the Supreme Court will now likely be compelled to resolve.
In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws that prohibit consumer contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration. On May 5, 2016, however, the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed a new rule that would restore consumer's rights to bring class action lawsuits against banks and other certain financial firms.
As President Obama meets with Asian leaders this week, his conversations with Chinese president Xi Jinping will surely touch on what has become a contentious topic with deep implications in the international community - namely, the rise of Chinese expansionism into the South China Sea. This, in turn, will reverberate on the international order and ability of countries to hold each other accountable under international treaties.
As this blog has chronicled in the past, it is extremely difficult for an arbitral award to be vacated. The Federal Arbitration Act and many state arbitral acts provide very limited grounds for vacatur, as courts are reluctant to second-guess an arbitrator's decision. Indeed, courts have even refused to vacate awards when the arbitrator erred in his application of the law. Even a "grave error" made by the arbitrator is insufficient to vacate an award, as it is not amongst the grounds for vacating a decision.
Massachusetts law recognizes arbitration as "a remedy created by statute which limits its availability to the parties to an arbitration agreement." Rae F. Gill, P.C. v. DiGiovanni, 34 Mass.App.Ct. 498, 503 (1993). In other words, a statute - the Massachusetts Arbitration Act (G.L. c. 251) ("MAA") - creates the ability for parties to settle their legal disputes through arbitration, but those parties also must have a prior agreement to do so. But what happens when one party refuses to arbitrate?
The Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled that an arbitrator exceeds her authority only when "she awards relief beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, beyond that to which the parties bound themselves, or enters an award prohibited by law." Conway v. CLC Bio, LLC, 2015 WL 9883907, Mass. App. Ct. No. 14-P-350 (June 12, 2015), at 5-6. The Court also reiterated that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") requires enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate statutory claims "absent a question of arbitrability, countervailing Congressional command, or cognizable challenge to the validity of the agreement to arbitrate." Id., at 10.
Arbitration agreements often name a particular arbitral forum to conduct an arbitration, but what if, when a dispute arises, that arbitral forum no longer exists or is otherwise unavailable? In Inetianbor v. CashCall, Inc., 768 F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 2014), the Eleventh Circuit held that "the failure of the chosen forum precludes arbitration whenever the choice of forum is an integral part of the agreement to arbitrate, rather than an ancillary logistical concern." This ruling reinforced Eleventh Circuit precedent and reflects the law in the majority of Circuit Courts that have considered the question.
In a recent decision, Bliss Realty Trust v. Roos Company, LLC et al., Civil Action 2014-7562, Superior Court Judge Dennis Curran dissolved a lis pendens he had granted only months earlier after he learned that the party seeking the lis pendens failed to notify the Court that the contract at issue contained a binding arbitration provision.
A recent SJC decision illustrates the unfortunate position in which a party may find itself when it fails to file an appeal but finds itself before an appellate court nonetheless as a result of an appeal filed by the opposing party. In Town of Athol v. Professional Firefighters of Athol, Local 1751, 470 Mass. 1001 (2014), the Supreme Judicial Court considered arguments that arose when town of Athol unilaterally raised the co-payments paid by members of a firefighters' union for medical services. After the union filed a grievance, alleging that the town's action had violated its collective bargaining agreement, the matter proceeded to arbitration. An arbitrator determined that changes to health insurance benefits were mandatory subjects of collective bargaining and the town had violated the collective bargaining agreement by making the changes unilaterally. The arbitrator required the town to return the co-payments to their original amounts and to "make union members whole for economic losses" incurred as a result of its improper action. The town appealed the arbitrator's award, filing a complaint in the Superior Court.