The Supreme Court recently granted cert to address the issue of whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act when the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question (Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143).
Prof. Imre Szalai, suspects that the Court, to maintain a robust framework supporting arbitration, will extend the “look-through” approach adopted in Vaden (for motions to compel arbitration) to situations to confirm or vacate an arbitral award. He tends to view the FAA as a comprehensive, unitary statute, and so the jurisdictional theory from section 4 of the FAA could (and in his opinion should) arguably extend to the confirmation and vacatur of awards under sections 9 and 10. One contrary argument is that the FAA was never intended to cover the arbitral resolution of federal question/statutory claims, but that ship has long sailed.
In this round of Arbitration Tips-N-Tools, Professor Amy Schmitz asks some of the leading arbitration practitioners about advice for attorneys deciding between online arbitration (OArb) and in-person arbitration, especially in...By Myriam Seers, Olof Heggemann, Oladeji Tiamiyu, Amy Schmitz
This article first appeared in Urbas Arbitral, here. In Malcolm Drilling Company Inc. v. The Graham-Aecon Joint Venture, 2021 BCSC 1136, Madam Justice Shelley C. Fitzpatrick issued a stay of proceedings...By Daniel Urbas