The Eleventh Circuit upheld an arbitral award last month despite the arbitrators’ failure to make certain disclosures regarding potential sources of bias. The litigation involved a dispute between the Panama Canal Authority, the government agency responsible for the operation and management of the Panama Canal, and Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A., the contractor hired to construct the Panama Canal expansion. Complications with the project caused progress to be “severely delayed and disrupted,” resulting in liability disputes between the parties.
Supreme Court Rules on the Requirements for a Waiver of the Right to Arbitrate
The United States Supreme Court recently resolved a circuit split regarding when a party has waived its contractual right to arbitrate by participating in litigation prior to seeking to arbitrate a dispute. In Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the Court held that the party seeking to resist arbitration does not need to show that it has been prejudiced by the other party’s delay in seeking to compel arbitration. Notably, and in holding that “the Eighth Circuit erred in conditioning a waiver of the right to arbitrate on a showing of prejudice,” the Supreme Court decided against the use of “custom-made rules, to tilt the playing field in favor of (or against) arbitration.”
Florida’s High Court Clarifies that Incorporating AAA Rules into an Arbitration Provision Delegates Arbitrability to Arbitrator
When a litigant seeks to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), there are two issues that must be resolved: (1) whether there is an agreement to arbitrate; and, if so, (2) whether the dispute at issue falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Airbnb, Inc. v. Doe, deals with who decides this second issue—the court or an arbitrator.
In Airbnb, a couple sued Airbnb and Wayne Natt (the property owner) for issues arising out of their stay at Natt’s condominium, which was listed for rent on Airbnb’s website. Airbnb moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the couple was required to arbitrate their claims because Airbnb’s Terms of Service included an arbitration provision that integrated the AAA Rules. All parties agreed that the couple was bound by the arbitration agreement—the issue then became whether the court or the arbitrator should decide if the couple’s claims against Airbnb were arbitrable.
Supreme Court Limits Federal Court Jurisdiction to Vacate or Confirm Arbitration Awards
In an 8-1 decision, the United States Supreme Court recently held in Badgerow v. Walters that federal courts may not examine the substance of arbitration disputes to establish federal question jurisdiction under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”). Not only did this decision resolve a circuit split, it, in essence, shifted more responsibility to state courts to confirm or vacate arbitration awards.
Ninth Circuit Splits From the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits in “Brain Twister” Arbitration Case
Arbitration provisions are common features of commercial agreements. Arbitration is often touted as a cost-effective alternative to litigation that provides contract parties the freedom to decide everything from what law the arbitrator should apply, to what issues the arbitrator should resolve. The parties can even delegate to the arbitrator the issue of what should and should not be arbitrated (also known as arbitrability issues) by incorporating a delegation clause in their arbitration agreement.
Tenth Circuit Finds FAA Defenses Applicable to Nondomestic Arbitral Awards
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held for the first time that parties opposing confirmation of nondomestic arbitral awards (i.e., awards issued in disputes involving property located or conduct occurring outside the U.S.) issued in the U.S. or under U.S. arbitration law are not limited to the grounds set forth in the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (the Panama Convention). Instead, the court ruled that defenses to confirmation under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) apply.
Think Your Arbitration Award Is Final? Maybe “Look Through” It Again
The question of federal court jurisdiction over arbitration proceedings has historically led to different conclusions. A few years ago, the United States Supreme Court clarified in Vaden v. Discover Bank that Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) authorizes a federal court to “look through” to the underlying controversy to determine if there is federal court jurisdiction to adjudicate a motion compelling arbitration. Until recently, however, the “look through” approach had not been adopted by the Second Circuit for determining whether a federal court has jurisdiction to hear a motion to vacate an arbitration award.
Proposed Legislation Would Set Back Corporations’ Use of Arbitration Clauses
The Restoring Statutory Rights Act of 2016, sponsored by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, was sent to congressional committee on February 4, 2016 for consideration.
The bill would place restrictions on companies’ use of arbitration clauses in agreements with consumers. Mandatory arbitration clauses have become a common — and controversial — feature of many consumer contracts. In signing agreements with banks, credit card companies, and cellular service providers, consumers frequently agree that they will arbitrate disputes, rather than sue in court.