As discussed by the ADR Prof Blog, on May 3, the SEC approved the proposed rule change to amend FINRA’s Customer and Industry Codes of Arbitration Procedure to raise the limit for simplified arbitration from $25,000 to $50,000. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 28, 2011. The rule is available here and the approval order is here.

We invite you to read yet another forthcoming article by Professor S.I. Strong entitled “Navigating the Borders Between International Commercial Arbitration and U.S. Federal Courts: A Jurisprudential GPS.” The piece will appear in 2012 Journal of Dispute Resolution __ (forthcoming 2012). Here is the abstract: To the uninitiated, international commercial arbitration may seem as if it “isn’t all that different” from domestic arbitration or litigation. However, the truth of the matter is that international commercial arbitration is an extremely challenging area of law, full of traps for inexperienced parties. This is particularly true with respect to the parties’ ability to seek relief from U.S. federal courts. While some advocates may believe that a visit to the judge is the best and fastest way to get results in certain types of procedural disputes, that tactic is often inappropriate in international arbitral proceedings, where the tribunal’s jurisdiction and powers are frequently in tension with the jurisdiction and power of various national courts (since there may be multiple courts that could potentially become involved with a particular matter). Quite simply, this area of practice is unlike any other, and the only way to avoid making expensive and time-consuming errors is to gain an overview of the process from a specialist’s perspective. This Article provides just that sort of guide, outlining the various ways in which U.S. federal courts can become involved in international commercial arbitration and introducing both basic and advanced concepts in a straightforward, practical manner. However, this Article provides more than just an overview. Instead, it discusses relevant issues on a motion-by-motion basis, helping readers find immediate answers to their questions while also getting a picture of the field as a whole. Written especially for busy lawyers, this Article gives practitioners, arbitrators and new and infrequent participants in international commercial arbitration a concise but comprehensive understanding of the unique challenges that arise in this complex area of law. Experienced counsel will also find the discussion helpful, not only as a means of explaining the process to clients and junior colleagues but also as a tactical tool to help consider various options in situations where a U.S. federal court may become (or has become) involved in an international arbitral proceeding. The full article is available for download (free of charge) here. Other papers by Professor S.I. Strong are here.

Mark your calendars! The 32nd Annual Meeting of the ICC Institute of World of Business Law presents Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration, in Paris on November 26, 2012. Details of the Conference will be provided here.

In Bison Building Materials, Ltd. v. Lloyd K. Aldridge, No.06-1084, _S.W.3d __ (Tex. April 20, 2012) the issue is whether an appellate court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a trial court order confirming an arbitration award in part and vacating the award in part based on the existence of unresolved questions of law or fact necessary to a ruling, yet the trial court did not expressly direct a rehearing. The Texas Supreme Court concluded that, unless specifically authorized by statute, the appellate court only had jurisdiction to review final judgments under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014. The court stated that the order was not final because “it does not contain finality language, state that it is a final order, or dispose of all claims and parties.” The court also found that the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA) did not apply because the arbitration agreement was not signed by the parties’ attorneys, as required by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 171.002(a)(3), (b)(2). Section 171.002(a) of the TAA states that Chapter 171 “does not apply to . . . a claim for personal injury,” unless the agreement is signed by both parties’ attorneys. Finally, the court noted that the parties did not seek review of the issue by mandamus. The court reasoned that granting review of an incomplete Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) arbitration by mandamus would have likely granted the matter a greater scope of review in Texas than would have been granted in a federal appellate court. Therefore, the court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment and, for different reasons, dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction.