Despite the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio recently denied a motion to compel arbitration concerning an alleged injury to a defined contribution retirement plan and its participants. In this case, two plaintiffs brought an action pursuant to § 409 and § 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) individually and on behalf of other similarly situated plan participants against Cintas Corporation for breaching its fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by mismanaging and failing to investigate and select better cost options for the plan. In response to this lawsuit, Cintas filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the employment agreements signed by the two plaintiffs.
Read the complete story here.
In this round of Arbitration Tips-N-Tools, Professor Amy Schmitz asks some of the leading arbitration practitioners about advice for attorneys representing parties in arbitration where the other side is not...
By Erin Archerd, Steven Shapiro, Imre Szalai, Amy SchmitzUpdate: Since the original publication of this article, the Servotronics II case has been dismissed by joint stipulation of the parties. There are two additional cases on Section 1782 Discovery...
By Thomas AllenIn this episode of the Arbitration Conversation, Amy interviews Prof. Steven Shapiro from the American University, Washington College of Law. Prof. Shapiro is the founder and Director of the Hospitality...
By Steven Shapiro, Amy Schmitz
With the purchase of a Featured Membership, you will be shown on the front page of Arbitrate.com to web site visitors from your city and region (“state” if you are in the USA). You may appear in more than one city/region by purchasing additional locations.
