For the second time in two years, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California law (the “McGill Rule”) which invalidates arbitration agreements that waive the right of consumers to seek public injunctive relief. This time, however, there are changed circumstances that increase the odds that the Court will grant review of this critically important arbitration issue.
Earlier, in June 2020, the Court denied two petitions for certiorari that presented the same FAA preemption issue. We reported on those cases extensively and filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Bankers Association and the Consumer Bankers Association in support of the petitioners. Those cases arose from Ninth Circuit opinions which held that the FAA does not preempt the McGill Rule
Read the complete story here.
Introduction and Unanswered Questions Airplane cargo loaders and ramp supervisors are now able to bring a claim for overtime pay in court, rather than being forced into arbitration. In...
By Brittany MunnThis article first appeared in Urbas Arbitral, here. In Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd. v. TSM Winny AG Ltd., 2020 SKQB 348, Mr. Justice Richard W. Elson held that the Convention on the...
By Daniel UrbasWhen Arbitrator Intelligence promised to increase transparency, accountability, and diversity in arbitrator selection, it was celebrated as a welcome innovation. Now separated from its academic backing, however, it might accomplish...
By Katherine Simpson
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.