Based in The Hague, Netherlands, the PRIME Finance Disputes Centre will launch its alternative dispute resolution services at the beginning of 2012. Its goal is to provide, promote, enable and support alternative dispute resolution, with its main focus on disputes concerning complex financial products, such as derivatives. Its panel of experts includes some of the most eminent financial and alternative dispute resolution experts in the world. The experts can provide assistance by: acting as independent experts in court; training judges so that they obtain a better understanding of the dynamics, effect and logic of different financial instruments; mediating between parties; and acting as arbitrators where disputes cannot be resolved amicably. Learn more at the Centre’s website here. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

Our friend John Wilkinson alerted us of that the ADR Section of the New York State Bar Association was combining into a single attractive booklet its April 2009 Guidelines for the Arbitrator’s Conduct of the Pre-Hearing Phase of Domestic Commercial Arbitrations and its November 2010 Guidelines for the Arbitrator’s Conduct of the Pre-Hearing Phase of International Arbitrations. The booklet just came out and you may download the pdf version here. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration  

In Blaustein v. Huete, No.11-30057 (5th Cir. La. Oct. 26, 2011) Burt David Huete along with Richard and Gail Blaustein, formed Special Projects Limited, L.L.C. (“SPL”) in connection with their application for a provisional patent for a wireless tracking device they had invented. SPL retained Timothy and Christopher Maier of Maier & Maier, P.L.L.C. (“the Maiers”) to prepare the patent application. Maier’s representation agreement included an arbitration clause and listed SPL as the client, with Huete and Richard Blaustein serving as signatories for SPL. When Huete’s relationship with Maier & Maier soured, he retained outside counsel. Huete sued the Blausteins and the Maiers claiming that the Blausteins conspired with the attorneys to extinguish his patent rights and that the patent application was deficient. The District Court, based on its determination that Huete was a party to the fee agreement, dismissed Huete’s claim pursuant to the agreement’s binding arbitration clause. Huete appealed the District Court’s ruling and a panel of the Fifth Circuit concluded that the District Court had erred in holding that Huete’s signing the fee agreement in the capacity of representative of SPL was sufficient to bind him individually to the agreement. Read about the case here. On remand, the District Court held that the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel required Huete to arbitrate his claims. Huete now appeals. This second time, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The court noted that direct benefits estoppel is one theory by which non-signatories may be bound to arbitrate. The court found no abuse of discretion in the application of the direct benefits estoppel doctrine. The court reasoned that: (a) Huete had “embraced” the fee agreement by obtaining the same sort of benefits that a client would have received; (b) Huete’s argument that the services were so poorly rendered that they were not benefits was grounded in the merits of his claim, not in its arbitrability; and (c) Huete’s claims had to be determined at least in part by reference to the fee agreement, as he alleged that the attorneys failed to exercise reasonable care in performing legal services for SPL. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, arbitration

In a patent infringement case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declined to recognize a federal mediation privilege. In Kimberly-Clark Worldwide v. First-Quality Baby Products (Fed. Cir. 2011), Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. (“K-C”), owner of patents related to disposable absorbent products (such as diapers) brought a patent infringement action against competitor First Quality Baby Products, LLC (“First Quality”). Fist Quality sought discovery with regard to dispute resolution agreements between K-C and another alleged infringer. K-C appealed the order of the U.S. District Court which required K-C to produce the dispute resolution agreements. K-C argued that the agreements were protected from disclosure under a federal mediation privilege, and that the proceedings under the agreements were privileged mediations. The appellate court held, however, that the agreements established an arbitration proceeding rather than a mediation, and thus the agreements were not subject to any mediation privilege. The Federal Circuit noted that (a) the agreements set up an adversarial proceeding in which a panel expressly described as “arbitrators” issued formal findings of fact and conclusions of law; (b) the fact that the arbitration panel’s decision was not binding did not by itself establish that the proceeding was a mediation to facilitate settlement; and (c) the decision affected the parties rights concerning limitations of damages and shifting of fees of the arbitrators and attorneys. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the order requiring K-C to produce the agreements. The court stated, “[b]ecause we conclude that K-C failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the Dispute Resolution Agreements did not provide for mediation, we decline to determine if, in light of reason and experience, we should recognize a mediation privilege.”