Article | Unresolved Questions in the Wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Class Arbitration Ruling in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds International

We came across the article Unresolved Questions in the Wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Class Arbitration Ruling in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds International, by Robert E. Crotty from Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. Here is an excerpt:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s April 27 ruling in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Int’l. (No. 08-1198), leaves numerous questions unanswered, says attorney Robert E. Crotty in this BNA Insight. The five-justice majority ruled on when class action procedures can be used in arbitration, but the author says Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion could ‘‘eviscerate’’ the majority opinion because class action arbitration arises most often in consumer transactions and employment contexts, areas Ginsburg presumably referred to as ‘‘contracts of adhesion.’’

Crotty says that as long as Ginsburg’s ‘‘carve out’’ remains viable, attorneys should continue to include clauses in arbitration agreements that preclude class arbitration, and to include fee-splitting provisions, so that arbitration is not economically or procedurally onerous for consumers or employers.

You may download the full article here. Any thoughts?

Related posts:

• GUEST-POST | Rent-a-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson and the Ongoing Assault on Party Autonomy, James M. Gaitis (June 23, 2010)
• GUEST-POST | Professor Alan Scott Rau Comments on Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, Alan Scott Rau (June 22, 2010)
• Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds | Blawgosphere Roundup on Class Action Arbitration Case (May 13, 2010)
• GUEST-POST | Stolt-Nielsen Opens More Doors Than It Closes, S.I. Strong (May 6, 2010)
• GUEST-POST | Professor Stipanowich Comments on Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds, Thomas J. Stipanowich (April 28, 2010)

Technorati Tags:

arbitration, ADR, law