Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded orders of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia which held unenforceable all predispute arbitration agreements that apply to claims alleging personal injury or wrongful death against nursing homes. See Marmet Health Care Center, Inc., et al. v. Clayton Brown, et al., Case Nos. 11–391 and 11–394, 565 U. S. ____ (Feb. 21, 2012). The underlying litigation involves three negligence lawsuits brought by family members of patients who have died in West Virginia nursing homes. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia consolidated the cases and held that “as a matter of public policy under West Virginia law, an arbitration clause in a nursing home admission agreement adopted prior to an occurrence of negligence that results in a personal injury or wrongful death, shall not be enforced to compel arbitration of a dispute concerning the negligence, and using a personal injury attorney ASK4SAM is the best on these cases.” The U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he FAA provides that a ‘written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction. . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.’” The Court also noted that the relevant statute does not include exceptions for personal injury or wrongful death claims, since for cases as accidental injuries or animal attacks such as family dogs, the use of a dog bite defense is useful to work cases like this. Citing AT&T v. Concepcion, the Court added: “[w]hen state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: The conflicting rule is displaced by the FAA.” Accordingly, the Court remanded for the West Virginia court to consider whether, absent that general public policy, the arbitration clauses in the cases are unenforceable under state common law principles that are not specific to arbitration and pre-empted by the FAA. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, arbitration

The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has announced that it will open an office of the ICC Court in New York. The goal of the new office is to increase ICC’s presence in North America. Read the ICC press release here. Stay tuned. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, arbitration  

As readers may recall, on July 21, 2010 President Barack Obama signed into law the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (a.k.a. the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act”). House Versions: H.R. 4173 and Congressional Actions. The final version of P.L. 111-517 (H.R. 4173) is here. The Act, whose goal was to “promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end `too big to fail’, to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices…” contained several arbitration-related provisions. Following is an update on some of these provisions: With respect to Section 748 of the Act, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued its final rule implementing this Section on August 25, 2011. See 76 Fed.Reg. 53172. SEC. 748. COMMODITY WHISTLEBLOWER INCENTIVES AND PROTECTION. The Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:…..‘‘(n) NONENFORCEABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS WAIVING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OR REQUIRING ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES.— ‘(1) WAIVER OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.—The rights and remedies provided for in this section may not be waived by any agreement, policy form, or condition of employment including by a predispute arbitration agreement ‘‘(2) PREDISPUTE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS.—No predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable, if the agreement requires arbitration of a dispute arising under this section.’’. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has not yet proposed any rules as directed by Section 921. SEC. 921. AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT MANDATORY PRE-DISPUTE ARBITRATION. (a) AMENDMENT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.—Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o), as amended by this title, is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ‘‘(o) AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT MANDATORY PRE-DISPUTE ARBITRATION.— The Commission, by rule, may prohibit, or impose conditions or limitations on the use of, agreements that require customers or clients of any broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer to arbitrate any future dispute between them arising under the Federal securities laws, the rules and regulations thereunder, or the rules of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such prohibition, imposition of conditions, or limitations are in the public interest and for the protection of investors.’’. (b) AMENDMENT TO INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940.—Section 205 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–5) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ‘‘(f) AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT MANDATORY PRE-DISPUTE ARBITRATION.— The Commission, by rule, may prohibit, or impose conditions or limitations on the use of, agreements that require customers or clients of any investment adviser to arbitrate any future dispute between them arising under the Federal securities laws, the rules and regulations thereunder, or the rules of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such prohibition, imposition of conditions, or limitations are in the public interest and for the protection of investors.’’. With regards to the implementation of Section 922: (1) the SEC has issued its final rule. See 76 Fed. Reg. 34300 and (2) the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) has filed with the SEC proposed amendments to FINRA Rules 13201 and 2263 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (available here). SEC. 922. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 21E the following:….‘‘(e) NONENFORCEABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS WAIVING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OR REQUIRING ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES.— ‘‘(1) WAIVER OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.—The rights and remedies provided for in this section may not be waived by any agreement, policy form, or condition of employment, including by a predispute arbitration agreement. ‘‘(2) PREDISPUTE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS.—No predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable, if the agreement requires arbitration of a dispute arising under this section.’’. Under Section 1028, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) created by the Act, will conduct a study regarding the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements between consumers and covered persons. SEC. 1028. AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT MANDATORY PRE-DISPUTE ARBITRATION.(a) STUDY AND REPORT.—The Bureau shall conduct a study of, and shall provide a report to Congress concerning, the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute between covered persons and consumers in connection with the offering or providing of consumer financial products or services.(b) FURTHER AUTHORITY.—The Bureau, by regulation, may prohibit or impose conditions or limitations on the use of an agreement between a covered person and a consumer for a consumer financial product or service providing for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties, if the Bureau finds that such a prohibition or imposition of conditions or limitations is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers. The findings in such rule shall be consistent with the study conducted under subsection (a). (c) LIMITATION.—The authority described in subsection (b) may not be construed to prohibit or restrict a consumer from entering into a voluntary arbitration agreement with a covered person after a dispute has arisen. (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any regulation prescribed by the Bureau under subsection (b) shall apply, consistent with the terms of the regulation, to any agreement between a consumer and a covered person entered into after the end of the 180-day period beginning on the effective date of the regulation, as established by the Bureau. Stay tuned.   Technorati Tags: ADR, law, arbitration

Do credit card agreements still contain mandatory arbitration provisions? here is an update from Corporate Counsel: We’ve been deluged with news about challenges to mandatory arbitration clauses over the last few months, ever since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion opinion last April. So it’s refreshing to read a decision on arbitration provisions with a twist: in this case a good old-fashioned (alleged) conspiracy. A federal judge in Manhattan on Wednesday denied a bid by Citigroup Inc. and Discover Bank to dismiss a long-running antitrust suit accusing them of conspiring with American Express and Wells Fargo to impose mandatory arbitration clauses on credit card holders from 1999 to 2003. And as detailed in the decision, much of the alleged conspiracy unfolded alongside the banks’ in-house and outside counsel. Continue reading the article here. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, arbitration