The plaintiff alleged that she was a victim of an illegal predatory loan orchestrated by the defendant’s company. The loan allegedly charged excessive interest but was shielded from U.S. law by tribal sovereign immunity.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the loan was illegal and that the defendant had committed RICO and other consumer protection violations. The loan contract, however, included an arbitration provision, providing that “any dispute … related to this agreement will be resolved through binding arbitration” under tribal law, subject to review in tribal court. The defendant moved to compel arbitration, contending that the plaintiff agreed to a delegation clause to arbitrate issues “concerning the validity, enforceability, or scope” of the arbitration agreement, but the district court denied the defendant’s motion. The court found that the enforceability of the arbitration agreement “has already been litigated, and decided against [the defendant], in a similar case commenced in Vermont.”
Read the complete story here.
Three years ago, the United States Supreme Court significantly changed the standard for determining whether a party has waived arbitration. In Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously held...
By Laura AthensIn this episode of the Arbitration Conversation, Amy interviews Paul Barker, a partner in the Bay Area office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and a member of the Firm’s ESG...
By Paul Barker, Amy SchmitzThis article first appeared on the Securities Arbitration Alert Blog, here. The split Ninth Circuit Panel that had ruled a year ago on California’s AB-51 has sua sponte withdrawn the decision and...
By George Friedman
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.
