Just days after approving a controversial rule that will make it much easier for Americans to sue their banks, the U.S.’s top consumer watchdog is already fighting back against attempts to prevent the regulation from taking effect, reports Bloomberg.

Bloomberg’s Elizabeth Dexheimer reports that Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray said there is “no basis” to claims that his agency’s action will put the nation’s financial system at risk. Cordray was responding to concerns raised by acting Comptroller of the Currency Keith Noreika, a regulator appointed by the Trump administration who had a long legal career representing banks.

Under the new rule, financial firms are restricted from forcing consumers to resolve their disputes through arbitration, a practice that has been used by the industry for years to keep grievances tied to payday loans, credit cards and other products out of courts.

Read the Bloomberg article.

The government’s consumer watchdog has finalized a rule that will make it easier for people to challenge financial companies in court, reports The Washington Post.

The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule targets arbitration clauses, which can show up on user agreements for credit cards, bank accounts and other consumer products.

“As a condition for receiving services or products, consumers often give up their right to join a class-action lawsuit with these clauses, and instead agree to settle any disputes in a private process known as arbitration,” writes the Post‘s Jonnelle Marte.

Now the rule will ban companies from using these agreements to block consumers from joining group lawsuits. But supporters of arbitration say the clauses can help companies and consumers save money by minimizing legal costs.

Read the Post‘s article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

A properly drafted arbitration clause with a class action waiver should be enforceable and can be a good and useful line of defense against expensive and costly litigation, especially class action lawsuits, write Jay N. Varon and Jennifer M. Keas in Foley & Lardner’s Consumer Class Defense Counsel blog.

Their article explains how arbitration works, what type of arbitration agreements are generally enforceable, what features that have or can cause problems, and how such provisions can reduce the risk of class actions.

They also discuss the possible effect or non-effect that could come from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s proposed arbitration rule.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided insight on factors a court should consider when determining whether a party has waived a contractual right to arbitration, the firm reports on its website.

“The factors, which are tied to potential prejudice to the non-moving party, include: (1) the time elapsed between commencement of litigation and the request for arbitration, and (2) the extent to which the moving party has participated in the litigation process,” according to Lazarini’s article.

His article examines the issue as presented in the case Chehebar vs. Oak Financial Group, Inc., No. 14-2982 (E.D. N.Y., 3/7/17)

Read the article.

Image by NY Photographic

A recent decision of the New Jersey Appellate Division considered the enforceability of arbitration agreements by non-signatories, writes Marissa Tillem in Proskauer Rose’s Minding Your Business blog.

She discusses a case in which the plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against defendant alleging violations of New Jersey’s Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, as well as the state’s Lemon Law.

The panel determined, among other things, that by signing a lease agreement, plaintiff agreed to arbitrate her dispute not only with the underlying signatories of the lease, but with any of its affiliates. Now the plaintiff will need to decide whether to pursue her claims in arbitration, Tillem explains.

Read the article.

“Class arbitration” — the utilization of a class action mechanism in an arbitration proceeding — is considered by some to be the unicorn of ADR; desirable but elusive, writes Gilbert Samberg on Mintz Levin’s blog, ADR: Advice from the Trenches.

“Another view is that it is the Frankenstein’s monster of ADR – an anomalous hybrid of disparate parts that comprise a disconcerting and ultimately nonviable creation,” he writes. “And so let us ask, is ‘class arbitration’ an oxymoron? Should it be viable given the essential nature of arbitration?  And whither the emperor’s jurisprudential clothes?”

The Mintz Levin post is one in a series of posts concerning the concept, its theoretical roots, the current state of the law, implementation of the mechanism, the significance and effects of a class arbitration award, etc.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

In his Petes’ Take blog for  Porzio, Bromberg & Newman,  Peter J. Gallagher describes a New Jersey case in which a court ruled that a clear arbitration provision, negotiated by a sophisticated party while represented by counsel, is enforceable.

In Columbus Circle NJ LLC v. Island Construction Co., LLC, the appellate court held that the arbitration provision in the AIA contract used in this case satisfied the requirements to explain to the signer the possible consequences of giving up the right to adjudication in a court of law, Gallagher explains.

“By its terms, the provision required plaintiff to choose between arbitration and ‘litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction,’ therefore, when plaintiff chose ‘arbitration,’ it did so ‘with full knowledge that arbitration [was] a substitute for the right to have [its] claim adjudicated in court.’ Moreover, the Appellate Division noted that neither the LLC nor its sole member was ‘an average member of the public,'” according to Gallagher.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

A recent decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals provides guidance for evaluation of the enforceability of arbitration agreements in the health care field, reports Snell & Wilmer in its Health Law Checkup blog.

Andrew Sniegowski explains that Gullett v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, LLC arose out of the plaintiff’s claims that a rehabilitation center had abused and neglected his father, who lived there for the last month of his life. The plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement was substantively and procedurally unconscionable.

The court determined that the agreement was substantively valid, but it remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial court limited to the issue of procedural unconscionability.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

A recent ruling in a New Jersey federal count stated that a contractual term, like an arbitration clause, is binding only when the terms are reasonably conspicuous, rather than in a manner that de-emphasizes its provisions.

Writing in Carlton Fields’ Reinsurance Focus, shareholder Jeanne Kohler described the case involving a Samsung smart watch. The suit accused the company of deceptive marketing and pricing. Samsung moved to compel arbitration, based on an arbitration provision on page 97 of a 143-page “Health and Safety and Warranty Guide” in the watch box.

The appellate court wrote that the clause “did not appear to be a bilateral contract, and the terms were buried in a manner that gave no hint to a consumer that an arbitration provision was within.”

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

In a pun-laden opinion, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s ruling that the Kardashian sisters Kim, Kourtney and Khloe could not rely on the doctrine of equitable estoppel to compel plaintiff Kroma Makeup EU, LLC to arbitrate its claims, reports TheTMCA.com.

Those claims involved allegations of trademark infringement and tortious interference with contract.

As the court put it, “there is a wrinkle in this case:  the arbitration clause which the non-party to the agreement is seeking to enforce is explicitly limited to disputes between the parties.”

TheTMCA.com reports:

The Eleventh Circuit first clarified that although federal law generally governs arbitration agreements, the “issue of whether a non-signatory to an agreement can use an arbitration clause in that agreement to force a signatory to arbitrate a dispute between them is controlled by state law,” and that the parties “agree that Florida law controls on that issue.”

Read the article.

All parties involved with a construction contract need to explore which dispute resolution option is right for them and the project, and also ensure their contract terms are as clear as possible to avoid potential problems down the road, writes Kim Slowey in Construction Dive.

In her article, Slowey covers mediation, arbitration vs. litigation, and the importance of planning.

She quotes Margaret Greene, partner and leader of the construction planning practice group at Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn in Detroit, who counsels that perhaps the most important aspect of dispute resolution is to minimize the chance of conflict before disagreements rise to the level of “disputes” or “claims.”

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Employers who don’t want employees to arbitrate employment-related claims shouldn’t bury the agreement in an employee handbook that includes a disclaimer stating that the handbook is not a contract, advises Business Management Daily.

That’s because a court could conclude that the conflicting language means the arbitration agreement isn’t binding.

The article describes a recent case in which an employer asked the court to send the case to arbitration, arguing that the employee knew about the arbitration requirement that was included in a handbook.

“The court didn’t see it that way. It reasoned that to be binding, the arbitration clause had to demonstrate clear mutual assent,” according to the article.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

A unanimous panel of the Sixth Circuit recently rejected a manufacturer’s attempt to compel arbitration under an expired contract in Linglong Americas, Inc. v. Horizon Tire, Inc., reports Butler Snow LLP.

Erin Palmer Polly explains that the manufacturer and its distributor entered into a collaboration agreement that contained an arbitration clause.

“The agreement expired and was not renewed, but the manufacturer and its distributor continued to work together and continued to make various representations of continued involvement,” she writes. “Approximately three years after the agreement expired, the parties’ relationship deteriorated and resulted in a federal court lawsuit.  The manufacturer attempted to compel arbitration and pointed to the arbitration provision in the collaboration agreement.”

She points to two important lessons to be learned from the case.

Read the article.

The Arbitration Nation blog provides a good example of how drafting arbitration agreements can go wrong, pointing to the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in Ragab v. Howard, in which a majority of the panel concluded that because the parties had six differing arbitration agreements, they had never reached a meeting of the minds on arbitration and their dispute would stay in court.

“The parties had six agreements that governed their business relationship. Each agreement had an arbitration agreement,” writes Liz Kramer in the Stinson Leonard Street blog. “But, those arbitration agreements did not provide for the same set of rules to govern the arbitration, or the same method of choosing an arbitrator, or the same notice period before arbitration, or the same opportunity to recover attorneys’ fees.  Even so, when Mr. Ragab sued the defendants for misrepresentation and statutory violations, the defendants moved to compel arbitration.”

Read the article.

Drafting an arbitration clause for an agreement may seem like a straightforward matter most of the time, writes Gilbert A. Samberg for Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo. It may even be as simple as incorporating by reference an arbitration provision in another document or agreement. Or is it?

In the article, he discusses a recent federal district court ruling, Cooperativa Agraria Industrial Naranjillo Ltda. v. Transmar Commodity Group, Ltd., that may offer a cautionary lesson  before making such assumptions.

“In Naranjillo, the decisive principle was that an offeree cannot assent to an offer unless the offeree knows of its existence. The Court found that there had been no showing that Naranjillo actually knew of the existence of the arbitration clause terms,” Samberg explains.

Read the article.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an arbitration award in a multimillion-dollar investment case Friday because the lead arbitrator impersonated a California attorney — something he did in dozens of cases before being exposed, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

Image by NY Photographic

When it comes to arbitration provisions in employment agreements, one size does not fit all. Arbitration has significant advantages and disadvantages. Deciding whether to include an arbitration provision in an employment agreement requires thorough consideration based upon an employer’s individual circumstances, according to a post in Trenam Law’s Employment Law Update.

The article discusses some of the pros and cons of adding such provisions.

Among the pros are class-action waivers, potential time savings and privacy. On the other hand, there’s the consideration of costs, because some employment arbitration regimes allocate many of the costs to the employer.

Read the article.

A well-drafted arbitration provision can save companies from expensive and time-consuming class litigation, two defense attorneys say in a report published by Bloomberg BNA.

Mayer Brown LLP partners Kevin S. Ranlett and Archis A. Parasharami of Washington say advise that companies and their lawyers should draft service and employment contracts with recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on arbitration.

The two helped client AT&T Mobility draft an arbitration provision that was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in one of those landmark cases, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011).

The sections on the three tips are headed: “Don’t Create Uncertainty,” “Include Consumer/Employee-Friendly Terms,” and “Avoid Potentially Unconscionable Terms.”

Read the article.

Arbitration clauses seriously harm many consumers. Yet it is nearly impossible to avoid signing them, if a person wants or needs to use the internet, phone, credit cards, loans, medical or long-term care services, and so on, according to an article posted by Newsome Melton on its Arbitration Law blog.

But lately, many state and federal government representatives, judges, politicians, and interest groups have been speaking up about arbitration, the article adds. Some have publicly pulled away from upholding universal “forced arbitration.”

“Individual arbitration clauses are now on the radar of many attorneys, judges, politicians, regulators, journalists, and consumers. It is too soon to tell whether the new or proposed regulations and rules preserving court trials and permitting class actions for consumers will be upheld or overturned,” the article says.

Read the article.

Practical Law will present a webinar titled “Ethics Issues in International Arbitration” on Thursday, Oct. 6, at 1-2:30 p.m. EDT.

In a release, the company said the seemingly straightforward process of appointing a neutral tribunal of three arbitrators and conducting the hearings may, in fact, give rise to a multitude of issues counsel and their clients must be aware of. How extensively may the parties communicate with their prospective arbitrator? How must the prospective arbitrator comport himself while being interviewed for the appointment? What are the rules regarding counsel’s interactions with witnesses? Are the rules different depending upon the jurisdiction?

Practical Law, the International Institute on Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR), and Jenner & Block will present international arbitration experts Richard Ziegler and Noah Hanft discussing ethics in international arbitration.

During this webinar, attendees will be walked through a hypothetical international arbitration, in which the presenters will consider:

• The parameters of party communications with a party-appointed arbitrator.
• The prospective arbitrator’s duties to maintain neutrality.
• Counsel’s duties in dealing with witnesses, including:
  • preparing witnesses for the hearing; and
  • communicating with witnesses after the hearings have started.
• The power of the tribunal to determine and redress ethical violations.
• The same ethical issues if the events occurred in the US.

A short Q&A will follow.

Ethics credit are available in multiple states.

Presenters:

Richard F. Ziegler, Partner, Jenner & Block LLP
Richard F. Ziegler is Co-Chair of Jenner & Block’s International Arbitration practice and a former Managing Partner of the firm’s New York Office. He is a former Chairman of the New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, and served as Senior Vice President, Legal Affairs, and General Counsel of the 3M Company in St. Paul, Minnesota from 2003-07. Mr. Ziegler is also a member of CPR’s Board of Directors.

Noah J. Hanft, President and CEO, International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution
Noah J. Hanft is the President and CEO of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution. Prior to joining CPR, Mr. Hanft was General Counsel and Chief Franchise Officer for MasterCard, where he was responsible for overseeing legal and regulatory affairs, public policy, compliance and many business functions. Mr. Hanft currently serves on the boards of the Legal Aid Society and the Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Victoria Kummer, Senior Legal Editor, Practical Law Arbitration (Moderator)

Register for the event.