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.
Did Monday 6th October 2021 feel like a snow or rain day to you? With Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp down for nearly six hours, panic and confusion took...
By Katie Hyman, Wendy GonzalesThe Supreme Court has decided Morgan v. Sundance Inc., No. 21-328, ruling unanimously that there is no prejudice requirement under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) for a court to find a waiver of...
By George FriedmanSummary: This excerpt discusses the importance of cross-cultural awareness in international arbitration. The author, Nelson Timken, defines cross-cultural awareness as the ability to understand and interact effectively with people from...
By Nelson Timken
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.
