http://www.cpradr.org RSS feeds for International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution 60 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/787/52313-Response-to-June-NYSBA-Journal-Article.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=787 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=787&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/787/52313-Response-to-June-NYSBA-Journal-Article.aspx Apply the law? That’s what the tribunal must do under CPR’s Non-Administered Arbitration Rules—notwithstanding a recent well-circulated article to the contrary. The CPR Institute believes that a recent prominent article by Paul Bennett Marrow misinterprets or misunderstands the CPR Non-Administered Arbitration Rules with regard to the obligations of arbitrators to apply law. In the article—see Paul Bennett Marrow, “Can an Arbitrator Conduct Independent Legal Research? If Not, Why Not?” NYSBA Journal 28 (May 2013) (Available here)--the author states that under the CPR rules, “applying law isn’t necessarily a given.” Specifically, Marrow notes, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) Rule 10 requires that the arbitrator apply whatever law the parties designate; absent a designation, the arbitrator has the power to select whatever law or rules he or she deems appropriate.  . . . [A]pplying law isn’t necessarily a given. In theory at least, the arbitrator is not barred from concluding that no law need be applied and instead may opt to do whatever seems fair and just. The CPR rules grant the arbitrator authority to vary from the prescribed procedures as necessary. But that authority is not unlimited. It is confined by the scope of the rules themselves, meaning that which is “reasonable and appropriate.” But CPR Non-Administered Arbitration Rule 10.1 is clear—and contrary.  The rule states: “The Tribunal shall apply the substantive law(s) or rules of law designated by the parties as applicable to the dispute. Failing such designation by the parties, the Tribunal shall apply such law(s) or rules of law as it determines to be appropriate.” (Emphasis added here.) By contrast, Marrow concludes that the International Chamber of Commerce Rules of Arbitration require an arbitrator to follow the rule of law—specifically, the “[a]pplication of a law being a given.” In support of this statement, ICC Article 21 is cited: “The parties shall be free to agree upon the rules of law to be applied by the arbitral tribunal to the merits of the dispute. In the absence of any such agreement, the arbitral tribunal shall apply the rules of law which it determines to be appropriate.” Yet CPR Non-Administered Arbitration Rule 10.1 and ICC Article 21 do not differ in any material respect, and questions the apparent conclusion that one requires the application of law, while the other does not. The Commentary to CPR’s Non-Administered Arbitration Rules back up the view that law must be chosen and applied: The Commentary’s “Salient Features of the Rules” states: “8. The Tribunal is required to apply the substantive law chosen by the parties to govern the merits of their dispute (Rule 10.1)." Moreover, the Commentary to Rule 10 states that “unless the parties shall have agreed in their contract or otherwise as to which law shall govern, the Tribunal is free to apply the law(s) or rules of law as it determines to be appropriate to govern the dispute.  . . . Arbitrators may not simply do as they please, however; any remedy or relief granted must be permissible under the contract and applicable law and Rule 15.2 requires arbitrators to explain the reasoning on which their awards rest.” The Commentary to Rule 15, requiring a written, reasoned arbitration award, says that “Unless the parties have agreed in their business agreement or otherwise which law shall govern, the Tribunal is free to determine the law which is to govern the award.” In short, the application of a law is a given under the CPR Rules, as it is under the ICC Rules.  [END] Russ Thu, 23 May 2013 19:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:787 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/786/41913-CPR-The-21st-Century-Corporate-ADR-Pledge-MCC.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=786 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=786&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/786/41913-CPR-The-21st-Century-Corporate-ADR-Pledge-MCC.aspx The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel The Editor interviews Kathy Bryan, President and CEO of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR Institute). Anne Ferguson Wed, 01 May 2013 20:05:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:786 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/785/7113-Administered-Arbitration-Rules-Effective-July-1-2013.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=785 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=785&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/785/7113-Administered-Arbitration-Rules-Effective-July-1-2013.aspx CPR has promulgated a set of administered arbitration rules to increase parties’ range of options. The CPR Rules for Administered Arbitration (July 1, 2013) provide parties with the same well-designed procedures and high quality arbitrators as CPR’s non-administered option, while also allowing the parties to avail themselves of CPR’s quality staff and resources when an administered process is desired. Anne Ferguson Wed, 01 May 2013 18:38:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:785 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/784/43013-New-Highlights-from-London-Eversheds-Y-ADRYIAG-Event.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=784 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=784&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/784/43013-New-Highlights-from-London-Eversheds-Y-ADRYIAG-Event.aspx On 6 February, over 80 YIAG and Y-ADR members met at Eversheds office in London for a young practitioners and In-House Counsel symposium. In addition to the YIAG co-Chairs and Olivier André (Special Counsel & Director of Dispute Resolution Services at CPR). Anne Ferguson Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:21:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:784 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/783/42213-Kramer-Levins-Oberman-on-5th-Cirs-Timegate-case-The-Arbitrators-Award-Limits-April-22.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=783 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=783&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/783/42213-Kramer-Levins-Oberman-on-5th-Cirs-Timegate-case-The-Arbitrators-Award-Limits-April-22.aspx Exceeding Powers – May an Arbitrator Amend a Contract As Part of an Award? By Michael S. Oberman The author is a litigation partner and head of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice Group of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP in New York. His experience includes service as an arbitrator. He is a member of the CPR Panels of Distinguished Neutrals, the American Arbitration Association’s Large, Complex Case Panel, and the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Panel. He is a Fellow of the College of Commercial Arbitrators and a board member of the N.Y. International Arbitration Center. Every now and again, a case comes along that guides what arbitrators may, or may not, do in resolving a dispute. Timegate Studios Inc. v. Southpeak Interactive LLC, 2013 WL 1437710 (5th Cir. Apr. 9, 2013)(available here), is such a case. Reversing a vacatur of an arbitration award by the federal Southern District of Texas, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the arbitrator had not exceeded his powers by amending the parties’ agreement to grant a perpetual license to the prevailing party in the losing party’s intellectual property. Timegate and Gamecock (owned by Southpeak Interactive LLC) had entered into a development agreement for a video game called "Section 8." Timegate was to design the game, and Gamecock was to fund the development—and then distribute—the game. The agreement gave Gamecock only a limited distribution license, and expressly reserved in Timegate the exclusive ownership of the game intellectual property. Additionally, the agreement specifically prohibited Gamecock from preparing derivative works and from exploiting any of the game’s subject matter except as provided for in the agreement. Section 8 was released two years after the agreement was made, but the game did not meet expectations.  The parties soon filed claims against each other in arbitration. The arbitrator—after an eight-day evidentiary hearing—unequivocally found that Timegate materially breached the agreement.   The arbitrator also found that Timegate had engaged in fraud--e.g., by failing to invest the amount of money it represented it was spending in game development, by diverting part of the money funded by Gamecock, and by releasing a version of the game for another game system contrary to the terms of the agreement.   The arbitrator awarded more than $7 million in damages to Gamecock, but he concluded that the monetary award was insufficient to fully compensate Gamecock for the injuries it would suffer due to Timegate’s failure to deliver what was required for other distribution channels and for sequels of the game. The arbitrator therefore provided in the award that the agreement "is hereby amended as a matter of law" to give Gamecock a perpetual license in Timegate’s intellectual property in the game and to authorize Gamecock to create sequels to the game without any need to account to Timegate. "The effect of the license-modifying portion of the Award was to realign major elements of the parties’ future relationship as established by their original agreement."  Id. at *3. Gamecock filed a motion in the federal district court to confirm the award, and Timegate moved to vacate the award. The district court “found that although a finding of fraud permits an arbitrator to fashion an award which conflicts with contractual provisions,” any such award must still be ‘“rationally inferable from the parties’ central purpose in drafting the agreement.’” Id. The district court held that “the arbitrator’s creation of the perpetual license was not a remedy rationally rooted in the contract.  Id.  Finding that it could "'not modify the award while still preserving its intent, and acting consistently with the essence of the parties’ contract,'" the district court vacated the award on the ground that the arbitrator had exceeded his power.  Id. (Citation omitted).  See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). A unanimous three-judge Fifth Circuit panel reversed. In an opinion by Circuit Judge W. Eugene Davis, it first stated the standard of review of an award: that a court "must sustain an arbitration award even if [the court] disagree[s] with the arbitrator’s interpretation of the underlying contract as long as the arbitrator’s decision ‘draws its essence’ from the contract"—or , put another way, "if it is rationally inferable from the letter or the purpose of the underlying agreement."  Timegate, 2013 WL1437710, at *4 (citations omitted).   Addressing Section 10(a)(4) of the FAA, the court observed that "[w]hether an arbitrator has exceeded his powers is tied closely to the applicable standard of review.  . . . [t]he question is whether the arbitrator’s award was so unfounded in reason and fact, so unconnected with the wording and purpose of the [contract] as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of an arbitrator." Id. (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Simply put, the appellate court wrote that "the substantive question of whether an arbitrator has exceeded his arbitration power is a function of our highly deferential standard of review in such cases: an arbitrator has not exceeded his powers unless he has utterly contorted the evident purpose and intent of the parties—the ‘essence’ of the contract."  Id. The court added that "the arbitrator’s selection of a particular remedy is given even more deference than his reading of the underlying contract"; "[t]he remedy lies beyond the arbitrator’s jurisdiction only if there is no rational way to explain the remedy handed down by the arbitrator as a logical means of furthering the aims of the contract."  Id. (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Having framed the standard as turning on the "essence" of the underlying agreement, the court proceeded to determine the essence of the particular agreement in the case. The court did so by reviewing the agreement itself, as opposed to taking findings from the award or from the district court’s decision. The court found that "virtually every foreseeable aspect of the parties’ business relationship is contemplated and addressed by the Agreement, representing a sensitive, interdependent balance in which each party was assured of a specific set of rights and benefits in exchange for their promise to accept a specific set of duties and responsibilities." Id. The court added that the "entire Agreement can accurately be summed up as the creation of a mutually beneficial business relationship between two parties with distinct expertise: a video game developer and a video game publisher." Id. Against this review of the agreement, the court held that the "perpetual license furthers these general aims of the Agreement." Id. at *5. Because it was conceded that the record proved an inability of the parties to further work with each other, the "only way to give Gamecock the opportunity to benefit from the future development variations of Section 8 was to cut Gamecock loose from Timegate and allow it to independently pursue game marketing efforts." Id.   The court observed that "the arbitrator could have reasonably found that only by severing the parties’ obligations to work with each other to develop, publish, and sell Section 8 could each party achieve the object of the Agreement: access to the financial benefits of their agreed-upon contributions." Id. Timegate argued that vacatur was warranted because the perpetual license was contrary to express provisions of the agreement.  The court rejected the argument, finding first that the agreement ran 35 pages so that any award "which attempts to compensate and restore one contractual party for multiple, irreversible breaches committed by the other party will inevitably realign some of the original contract’s provisions." Id. at *6.   The court also noted that Texas law provides a basis for voiding provisions of a contract upon a finding of fraudulent inducement. The court next distinguished its prior cases that found an arbitrator had exceeded his powers by saying that, in those cases, the arbitrator had "intruded on an issue that was reserved for an alternative decisionmaker or was removed from anyone’s discretion under the contract." Id. (Citation omitted). Pulling these threads together, the Fifth Circuit concluded: "Although this court has not considered a factually similar application of the essence test, our caselaw suggests that the perpetual license is within the broad scope of the arbitrator’s authority." Id.   In particular, the court quoted from a prior case that an award must be upheld "[p]rovided that [the arbitrator’s] choice is not precluded by the arbitration provision under which he is acting, is adequately grounded in the contract, and is not arbitrary or capricious." Id. at *7 (citation omitted; emphasis added by the Fifth Circuit). The court noted that it had located only one case on point—a decision by the California Supreme Court—and the Fifth Circuit found that case (which also upheld an award) to be persuasive authority.  Id. (citing Advanced Micro Devices Inc. v. Intel Corp., 885 P.2d 994 (Cal. 1994)). The court completed its opinion by reiterating the elements that drove the decision: Timegate committed an extraordinary breach of the Agreement, and an equally extraordinary realignment of the parties’ original rights is necessary to preserve the essence of the Agreement.  Because the Agreement bestowed broad remedial powers     upon the arbitrator and because it was fraudulently induced and irreversibly violated by Timegate, the perpetual license is a rational and permissible attempt to compensate Gamecock and maintain the Agreement’s essence. The court did not detail how the arbitration provision in this agreement was broad; it merely stated that "the arbitration clause is quite broad and contains no limits relevant to the instant dispute: 'any dispute  . . . shall be submitted to binding arbitration.'"  Id. at *4. (Emphasis is the Fifth Circuit opinion’s.)   Nor in its analysis did the court address whether a district court—if presented with the same set of facts in a lawsuit—could provide the same remedy as the perpetual license upheld by this opinion (although the Advanced Micro Devices decision, cited with approval in Timegate, recognizes that an arbitrator may award a remedy that would not be available in a court proceeding and further recognizes that parties in their arbitration provision can limit an arbitrator’s power to do so). So, what guidance does this case provide? First, it must be noted that there were unchallenged findings of misconduct by Timegate—not a mere breach of contract, but conduct sounding in fraud. Second, the nature of the agreement—which envisioned future joint exploitation of the video game—meant that monetary damages accrued to date would not provide a complete remedy, and probably damages for unrealized future profits could be seen as too speculative  to calculate. Third, the arbitration provision did not limit the remedies that could be awarded.  In this set of circumstances, the Fifth Circuit found that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers by amending the agreement to provide Gamecock with a perpetual license. Given the deferential standard of review under Section 10(a)(4) and the several qualifications just noted, it cannot be said that the court was in any way suggesting that amending a contract should be considered a “best practice” for arbitrators or that arbitrators are being encouraged to be creative in fashioning remedies. But the case does teach that in the right circumstances and with the right contract provisions, an award amending a contract in order to afford complete relief to the injured party can fit within the powers of an arbitrator. [END] Russ Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:12:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:783 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/782/CPR-and-the-Irish-Commercial-Mediation-Association-Enter-into-Historic-Agreement-to-Recognize-Respective-Pledges-Promoting-ADR-Press.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=782 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=782&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/782/CPR-and-the-Irish-Commercial-Mediation-Association-Enter-into-Historic-Agreement-to-Recognize-Respective-Pledges-Promoting-ADR-Press.aspx The International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) and the Irish Commercial Mediation Association (ICMA), which is based in Ireland, entered into an historic Mutual Recognition Agreement to promote their respective ADR pledges and charters as mutually supportive of each other. Anne Ferguson Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:48:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:782 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/781/Moving-Arbitration-Online-The-Next-Frontier-NYLJ.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=781 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=781&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/781/Moving-Arbitration-Online-The-Next-Frontier-NYLJ.aspx We believe that the time has come for the law to embrace the transformative power of technology. If the law is to stay relevant to the challenges presented by global and online business, the system must be reinvented to adapt to the new realities of a networked world. Anne Ferguson Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:06:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:781 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/780/ADR-in-Bankruptcy-Expanding-Opportunities-BNA-InsightsBloomberg.aspx#Comments 1 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=780 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=780&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/780/ADR-in-Bankruptcy-Expanding-Opportunities-BNA-InsightsBloomberg.aspx During the past several years, the financial crisis has provided opportunities for bankruptcy courts and parties to continue to make use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tools in their cases.1 _____________________ 1 Some examples of ADR tools include mediation (evaluative or facilitative), arbitration, med/arb, and early neutral evaluation. See Elizabeth S. Strong, Some Reflections from the Bench on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Business Bankruptcy Cases, Arbitration, 17 AM. BANKR. INST. L. REV. 387 (2009). Anne Ferguson Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:18:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:780 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/779/CPR-AND-CMAP-Enter-Into-Historic-Agreement-To-Recognize-Respective-Pledges-Promoting-ADR-Press.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=779 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=779&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/779/CPR-AND-CMAP-Enter-Into-Historic-Agreement-To-Recognize-Respective-Pledges-Promoting-ADR-Press.aspx Paris, France, March 1, 2013 – Today, the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) and the Paris-based Centre de Médiation et d’Arbitrage de Paris (CMAP) entered into a historic Mutual Recognition Agreement to promote their respective ADR pledges as mutually supportive of each other. Anne Ferguson Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:22:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:779 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/778/CPRs-Patent-Mediation-Task-Force-Releases-New-Report-Effective-Practices-Protocol-Press.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=778 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=778&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/778/CPRs-Patent-Mediation-Task-Force-Releases-New-Report-Effective-Practices-Protocol-Press.aspx CPR’s Patent Mediation Task Force released its Effective Practices Protocol today endorsing the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in patent disputes, an area in which the cost of litigation expenses have become astronomical. Anne Ferguson Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:40:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:778 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/777/Report-of-the-CPR-Patent-Mediation-Task-Force-Effective-Practices-Protocol.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=777 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=777&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/777/Report-of-the-CPR-Patent-Mediation-Task-Force-Effective-Practices-Protocol.aspx The CPR Patent Mediation Task Force was convened in response to current patent settlement rates, which demonstrate that mediation continues to be underutilized in patent disputes. The Task Force’s main objective was to analyze methods and solutions for improving the use and efficiency of mediation as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in patent disputes. Anne Ferguson Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:25:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:777 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/776/Urgent-Need-for-New-Litigation-Approach-Article.aspx#Comments 20 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=776 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=776&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/776/Urgent-Need-for-New-Litigation-Approach-Article.aspx General counsel can implement a systems-based approach for managing cases, with goal of limiting costs through ADR. Anne Ferguson Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:16:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:776 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/775/CPR-Launches-21st-Century-Corporate-ADR-Pledge-at-Annual-CPR-Meeting-in-San-Diego-Press.aspx#Comments 21 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=775 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=775&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/775/CPR-Launches-21st-Century-Corporate-ADR-Pledge-at-Annual-CPR-Meeting-in-San-Diego-Press.aspx Fortune 500 Elites sign pledge to create sustainable dispute resolution management systems to reduce costs and boost global competitive edge. Anne Ferguson Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:43:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:775 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/774/Guidelines-for-Arbitrators-Conducting-Complex-Arbitrations.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=774 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=774&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/774/Guidelines-for-Arbitrators-Conducting-Complex-Arbitrations.aspx These Guidelines have as their governing principle the achievement by the arbitrators of a fair award, arrived at efficiently. Thus, the Guidelines urge arbitrators to conduct proceedings in a way that is, from the outset, mindful of what and how the parties will have to present to them that will enable them to deliver a prompt award that takes fully into account the parties’ presentations. Anne Ferguson Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:50:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:774 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/773/CPR-Institute-Presents-its-30th-Annual-Awards-for-Outstanding-Scholarship-in-ADR-Press.aspx#Comments 19 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=773 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=773&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/773/CPR-Institute-Presents-its-30th-Annual-Awards-for-Outstanding-Scholarship-in-ADR-Press.aspx FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                Media Contact: Wendi Chason 646-753-8223 wchason@cpradr.org Download a PDF of this Press Release here. NEW YORK, NY, January 17, 2013 – The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR), an independent nonprofit comprised of global corporations, law firms, scholars, and public institutions dedicated to the principles of commercial conflict prevention and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), presented its 30th Annual Awards for Outstanding Scholarship in ADR on January 17, 2012 at a ceremony held at the Lodge at Torrey Pines, La Jolla, California at CPR’s Annual Meeting. The CPR Institute’s Awards Program recognizes exceptional practical achievement and scholarship in the field of alternative dispute resolution. Award criteria focused on processes, techniques, systems, commitment, and scholarship which address the resolution, prevention, or creative management of major disputes involving public or business institutions between corporations, governments, or other parties. James F. Henry Award The James F. Henry Award was presented to Margaret L. Shaw for her leadership, innovation and sustaining commitment to the field of ADR. Outstanding Practical Achievement This award is presented to companies, law firms, court systems, neutrals, and others in the use of innovative methods and systems to prevent, resolve, or manage disputes effectively. This year the award was presented to Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Foreclosure Mediation Program. Outstanding Original Professional Article This award recognizes an article published by academics and other professionals that advances understanding in the field of ADR. This year the award was granted to Jacqueline Nolan-Haley for her article Mediation: The “New Arbitration” 17 Harvard Neg. L Rev. 61 (2012). Outstanding Original Short Article This award recognizes a short article that advances understanding in the field of ADR. This year the award was presented to Charles B. Rosenberg and Dr. Matthew T. Parish for their article Investment Treaty Law and International Law, 23 Amer. Rev. of Int’l Arb. 1 (August 2012). Outstanding Original Student Article This award recognizes an article or paper written by a student that was focused on events or issues in the field of ADR. This year the Outstanding Original Student Article award was granted Grant Strother for his student paper  Resolving Cultural Property Disputes in the Shadow of the Law submitted for a Harvard Law School Class in 2012), which will be published in the Spring 2014 Harvard Negotiation Law Review. Outstanding Book This award recognizes a published book that advances understanding in the field of ADR. This year the award was presented to Mohamed S. Abdel Wahab, Ethan Katsh and Daniel Rainey, (Eds.), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice, Eleven International Publishing, The Netherlands (2012). Outstanding Electronic Media About ADR This award is presented to a company, group, or individual that has produced exceptional electronic media that was focused on the field of ADR. This year the award was granted to Just Court ADR (http://blog.aboutrsi.org) for providing courts with a forum to discuss their unique perspective on ADR. About CPR CPR is the only independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to help global business and their lawyers resolve complex commercial disputes more cost effectively and efficiently. For over 30 years, the legal community has trusted CPR to deliver superior arbitrators and mediators and innovative solutions to business conflict. CPR’s membership comprises an elite group of ADR trailblazers, including executives and legal counsel from the world’s most successful companies and global law firms, government officials, retired judges, highly-experienced neutrals, and leading academics. For more information on CPR, please visit www.cpradr.org. ### Anne Ferguson Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:22:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:773 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/772/Getting-a-Better-Balance-on-International-Arbitration-Tribunals-Jrnl-of-London-Ct-of-Intl-Arb.aspx#Comments 7 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=772 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=772&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/772/Getting-a-Better-Balance-on-International-Arbitration-Tribunals-Jrnl-of-London-Ct-of-Intl-Arb.aspx In this article the authors look at gender diversity in international arbitration tribunals and draw a comparison with gender diversity in the judiciary, in law firms and in major companies. Anne Ferguson Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:47:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:772 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/771/CPR-Forms-Prestigious-Directors-Officers-Liability-Insurance-Group-Press.aspx#Comments 5 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=771 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=771&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/771/CPR-Forms-Prestigious-Directors-Officers-Liability-Insurance-Group-Press.aspx The International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) launched a Directors and Officers’ (D&O) Liability Insurance Group to explore ways to incorporate the use of mediation, arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes into the resolution of D&O matters. Anne Ferguson Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:22:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:771 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/770/CPR-Convenes-Mass-Claims-Commission-to-Address-Swift-Resolution-of-Superstorm-Sandy-Insurance-Claims-Press.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=770 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=770&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/770/CPR-Convenes-Mass-Claims-Commission-to-Address-Swift-Resolution-of-Superstorm-Sandy-Insurance-Claims-Press.aspx The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR) announced that it has convened a group of interested neutrals, insureds and insurers, under the auspices of its Commission on Facilities for the Resolution of Mass Claims, to help insurers and insureds facilitate the quick resolution of the claims arising from the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. Anne Ferguson Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:17:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:770 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/769/CPR-Welcomes-Three-Prestigious-New-Board-Members-Press.aspx#Comments 7 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=769 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=769&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/769/CPR-Welcomes-Three-Prestigious-New-Board-Members-Press.aspx FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                       Media Contact: Dana Massarsky 646-753-8231 dmassarsky@cpradr.org New York, NY, December 5, 2012 – The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR), the only independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to help global business and their lawyers resolve complex commercial disputes more cost effectively and efficiently, announces three new additions to its elite Board of Directors.   CPR’s newest Board members are: Evan R. Chesler – Litigation Partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Evan Chesler is Cravath’s Presiding Partner. He has extensive experience in both trial and appellate courts, and has tried numerous cases in federal and state courts nationwide. Effective January 1, 2013, he will become Chairman of the firm, the first person to be given that title in the firm’s history. John Heaps- Chairman of Eversheds LLP Based in London, John Heaps is the Chairman of Eversheds LLP and a Partner in the Commercial Dispute Resolution team. He is an elected member of the firm’s Board and its constitutional committee. He represents European and U.S. multinational companies in relation to their commercial disputes, and is a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Hon. Judith S. Kaye - Of Counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Judith S. Kaye joined Skadden’s Litigation Group in 2009. Before joining the firm, she served as Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals for 15 years, longer than any other Chief Judge in New York’s history. She gained a national reputation for both her groundbreaking decisions and her innovative reforms of the New York court system, and is the author of more than 200 publications.  “We are delighted to welcome these new additions to our Board of Directors,” said Kathleen A. Bryan, President and CEO of CPR. “They are staunch supporters of CPR, its programs, and its activities and will bring exciting new ideas and enthusiasm to our Board.” CPR provides an independent platform for corporate counsel, lawyers and global ADR practitioners to share best practices advance their skills and expend the field of commercial dispute resolution. These highly-successful and notable members of the corporate and legal communities will play an integral role in guiding CPR in its mission to spearhead innovation and promote excellence as the primary multinational resource for avoidance, management and resolution of commercial disputes. The Chairman of CPR’s Board of Directors is the Honorable William H. Webster, former Director of the CIA and FBI, U.S. Court of Appeals and District Court Judge and partner with Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP.  The Vice Chairman is John S. Kiernan of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.  For a full Board of Directors list, biographies and additional information about CPR, visit www.cpradr.org. You may download a copy of the organization’s annual report here. About CPR CPR is the only independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to help global business and their lawyers resolve complex commercial disputes more cost effectively and efficiently. For over 30 years, the legal community has trusted CPR to deliver superior arbitrators and mediators and innovative solutions to business conflict. CPR’s membership comprises an elite group of ADR trailblazers, including executives and legal counsel from the world’s most successful companies and global law firms, government officials, retired judges, highly-experienced neutrals, and leading academics. For more information on CPR, please visit www.cpradr.org. ### Anne Ferguson Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:55:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:769 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/768/CPR-Will-Provide-Mediators-for-Sandy-Claims-Nov-12-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=768 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=768&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/768/CPR-Will-Provide-Mediators-for-Sandy-Claims-Nov-12-2012.aspx The CPR Institute has convened a group of interested neutrals, insureds and insurers, under the auspices of its Commission on Facilities for the Resolution of Mass Claims, to address the resolution of potential claims associated with tropical storm Sandy.   At an initial conference call Nov. 12, a representative for a major insurer issued a request for qualified members of CPR’s Panels of Distinguished Neutrals to stand by for mediations once claims are filed.  The insurer is seeking neutrals with property and casualty mediation experience; it expects most of the matters to be addressed will involve homeowners, not commercial claims.   The claims, and mediation work, is expected to be centered on New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, which bore the brunt of Sandy’s landfall on Nov. 6.   In anticipation of other similar insurer requests, the CPR Mass Claims Commission and interested parties will reconvene to consider current industry needs and provide an update on any legislative or regulatory initiatives that are introduced and which will affect claims resolution. For more information, Email info@cpradr.org. Russ Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:18:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:768 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/767/CPR-Honors-Royal-Dutch-Shell-and-Legal-Director-Peter-J-Rees-at-Annual-Corporate-Leadership-Award-Dinner-Press.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=767 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=767&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/767/CPR-Honors-Royal-Dutch-Shell-and-Legal-Director-Peter-J-Rees-at-Annual-Corporate-Leadership-Award-Dinner-Press.aspx 2012 honorees recognized for leadership and commitment to conflict management and resolution. Anne Ferguson Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:19:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:767 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/766/Todays-NYLJ-A-New-Era-of-Partnership-Discusses-GSKs-Use-of-CPR-Tools-Oct-15-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=766 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=766&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/766/Todays-NYLJ-A-New-Era-of-Partnership-Discusses-GSKs-Use-of-CPR-Tools-Oct-15-2012.aspx Do not miss today's New York Law Journal. CPR Institute board member Elpidio "PD" Villarreal teams with CPR President and CEO Kathy Bryan for "A New Era of Partnership," a discussion of how law firms can work better with corporate clients by taking advantage of early case assessment tools and best conflict resolution management practices. Villarreal is senior vice president and head of global litigation at GlaxoSmithKline in Philadelphia. The pair co-authored the article with Brennan Torregrossa, who is assistant general counsel of GSK, also based in Philadelphia. The article details how GSK and its law firms have successfully reduced the company's legal budget by reducing the time expended on matters through the use of CPR Institute tools and resources.  The processes detailed in the article involve using a systems approach to addressing business conflict, emphasis prevention and early case assessment practices and tools, and customized dispute resolution processes You can find the article here. You can leave your comments below. Russ Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:11:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:766 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/765/CPR-and-CMAP-Enter-into-Historic-Agreement-to-Exchange-Neutrals-Press.aspx#Comments 8 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=765 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=765&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/765/CPR-and-CMAP-Enter-into-Historic-Agreement-to-Exchange-Neutrals-Press.aspx The International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) and the Paris-based Centre de Médiation et d’Arbitrage de Paris (CMAP) entered into a historic agreement enabling each of these organizations to exchange the names of their highly qualified French-English bilingual arbitrators and mediators (neutrals) who are competent to handle complex commercial cross-border disputes with billions of dollars at issue. Anne Ferguson Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:20:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:765 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/764/CPR-Mourns-One-of-its-Longtime-Neutrals--David-Plant.aspx#Comments 7 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=764 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=764&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/764/CPR-Mourns-One-of-its-Longtime-Neutrals--David-Plant.aspx CPR is sorry to report that David Plant, a longtime CPR neutral and supporter passed away on September 26, 2012. Anne Ferguson Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:15:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:764 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/763/Scotus-Cert-Petition-filed-on-Ninth-Circuit-VA-Disability-Benefits-Case-Sept-5-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=265&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=763 http://www.cpradr.org/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=763&PortalID=0&TabID=265 http://www.cpradr.org/Resources/ALLCPRArticles/tabid/265/ID/763/Scotus-Cert-Petition-filed-on-Ninth-Circuit-VA-Disability-Benefits-Case-Sept-5-2012.aspx Lawyers for two veterans' groups have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case about the lengthy delays in the process of getting their benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Last year, the groups won a 2-1 Ninth Circuit decision that held that the delays in receiving disability benefits violated due process and were unconstitutional, setting the stage for federal court oversight of the application determinations, and agency appeals. The Ninth Circuit reheard the case en banc and reversed in May, citing a lack of jurisdiction.  It said that the "nonadversarial procedures" at the VA's regional offices were "sufficient to satisfy due process." The petition, filed today, focuses on the statutory jurisdiction provision in the en banc decision.  That decision said that the court couldn't review the constitutional claims attacking the VA processes because the Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA), 38 U.S.C. § 511(a), provides that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs “shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans.” The petition is linked at the end of this article, and includes appendices that contain the first Ninth Circuit opinion and the en banc reversal.  It also contains the original federal district court decision, which had found in the government's favor, and which the en banc decision restores. [Our website article on the May Ninth Circuit en banc reversal can be found here. Website coverage of the first Ninth Circuit decision can be found here and at "'This is Their Wake-Up Call': Ninth Circuit Trashes the Veterans' Administration Clam Processes," by Russ Bleemer and Peter Siemons, 29 Alternatives 7 (July/August 2011)(available here with subscription).] The cert petition--prepared by attorneys in the San Francisco and Washington, D.C., offices of Morrison & Foerster, and Berkeley, Calif., advocacy firm Disability Rights Advocates, on behalf of the petitioner veterans groups, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth--says that there is no "decision" involved in the veterans' claims under the statute:  The Ninth Circuit’s construction departs from the plain language of the statute by reading the word "decision" out of Section 511(a). Nowhere do petitioners challenge any “decision” by the Secretary in any particular veteran’s case; petitioners challenge the VA’s deficient procedures and unjustifiable delays before making the decision, rather than the decision itself. The cert petition--402 pages with appendices--says that there are three federal circuit courts that have a conflicting view of the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of Sec. 511(a)'s reach, and the Supreme Court should take the case to resolve the conflict. * * * The brief also updates earlier arguments on the scope of the delays and backlogs in processing veterans' claims.  It notes that 75,000 veterans are awaiting mental health treatment due to "an unprecedented" number of post-traumatic stress syndrome claims because of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. "Congress has taken notice of this epidemic and has directed the VA to implement a comprehensive fix," the petition states, "but the VA has failed to implement procedures necessary to ensure that our Nation’s veterans receive the benefits to which they are entitled." Since the May Ninth Circuit en banc decision, however, the VA has addressed the claims' backlogs, and the processing delays.  A May audit of the VA Regional Offices’ claims processes by the agency's inspector general (available here), provides recommendations to fix the system to generate fewer appeals.  In July, the VA held a press conference to announce changes in the claims processes with a similar goal.  Those changes include a speedier review process in the regional VA offices, which is the primary battleground over the delays.  A press release on the changes can be found here. The cert petition questions the VA's improvement efforts generally--it doesn't address the recent moves--but focuses on the jurisdictional issue, noting, Under the ruling below, veterans and their organizations have no recourse to challenge the systemic failures of the VA to provide expedient medical care. Nor can veterans or their families seek review of the VA’s failures to make timely determinations regarding disability and death benefits requests—meanwhile, those systemic failures force veterans to navigate the Kafkaesque cycle of benefits denials, appeals, and remands. This is the case even though [the Supreme] Court consistently has construed jurisdiction-stripping statutes narrowly, particularly where their application would foreclose all judicial review and bar constitutional challenges. Despite the jurisdictional focus, the petition repeatedly castigates the government for veterans' compensation problems, taking aim at the VA and the executive branch: Congress has done its part by requiring that our veterans receive medical care and disability benefits when they return home and by providing the necessary funding. The executive branch, however, has fallen woefully short. This Court should not allow the government’s systemic failures to be insulated from judicial review. The petition also counters the en banc decision's characterization of the claims process:  "It is difficult to imagine a more adversarial system than one in which thousands of veterans must seek mandamus relief from a court to receive the disability benefits to which they are entitled by statute." The Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case this fall; amicus briefs are expected to be filed soon. --Russ Bleemer, Editor, Alternatives 2012-09-05 VCS cert petition.pdf Russ Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:54:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:763