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.
Just as we went to press came word that, based on statutory construction, the Supreme Court has decided Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143, ruling 8-1 that the “look through” doctrine does...
By George FriedmanIn 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 SchmitzThis 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