Former CPR Institute President and CEO Thomas J. Stipanowich, a law professor who is William H. Webster Chair in Dispute Resolution and academic director of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, Calif., adapts and shares private remarks on yesterday's Stolt-Nielsen U.S. Supreme Court deicison on class arbitration .
[Read the rest of this article...]
In his majority opinion in today’s Stolt-Nielsen S.A. et al. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., No. 08-1198 associate Justice Samuel Alito traces the history of party self determination in arbitration--and why acceptance of an arbitration agreement doesn't carry with it the exposure to class processes.
Now, parties to old contracts silent on class action arbitration needn’t fear that an arbitral panel will launch a class proceeding. Today’s decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. et al. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., No. 08-1198, is unequivocal: class action arbitration cannot be imposed. But how far does that go? Class arbitration was not eliminated in Justice Alito's opinion today.
Daniel Winslow, a Boston partner and litigator at international law firm Duane Morris LLP, and The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR Institute), are pleased to announce the rollout of a pilot program for the CPR Institute’s first model Economical Litigation Agreement (ELA), which is a new model contractual agreement that companies can use to limit litigation costs.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-3 opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, this morning ruled that a court cannot impose class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize the process, and doing so is is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq.
Click here to view all ADR articles.