The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) will host its annual Alexander Lecture. President of the UK Supreme Court and CIArb Patron The Right Hon the Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers will analyse the judgments made by the Supreme Court and the Paris Court of Appeal in the landmark case of Dallah v Pakistan. Lord Phillips will consider why the two courts came to different conclusions, exploring the possible implications for the arbitration community as a whole. Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan is arguably a case which has been waiting to happen for years. An arbitral award rendered in Paris to be enforced in London saw the English courts seeking to determine whether a government could be liable to honour an arbitration award rendered against it in relation to a contract and arbitration clause which did not name it as a party. To find out more about the Lecture, click here. To book online, click here. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion on KPMG, LLP v. Cocchi et al., 565 U. S. ____ (2011). Background and holding are as follows: In this case the Fourth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida upheld a trial court’s refusal to compel arbitration of respondents’ claims after determining that two of the four claims in a complaint were nonarbitrable.Though the matter is not altogether free from doubt, a fair reading of the opinion indicates a likelihood that the Court of Appeal failed to determine whether the other two claims in the complaint were arbitrable. For this reason, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings. Docket No. 10-1521 is here. The opinion is here. We will post more about the opinion soon. Stay tuned. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

In Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Baker Hughes Inc., No. 01-11-00562 (Tex.App. – Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 13, 2011) Schlumberger Technology Corp. (“Schlumberger” ) and Baker Hughes Inc. (“Baker Hughes”) are in an arbitration proceeding to resolve a patent infringement dispute. During the arbitration, a disagreement arose about whether the presiding panel of arbitrators has jurisdiction to determine an issue raised by Baker Hughes. Schlumberger contends that the issue should be resolved by the same panel. However, Baker Hughes argues that the issue is governed by a prior settlement agreement and must be resolved by the mediator who facilitated that agreement. Baker Hughes and Schlumberger filed motions in trial court in accordance with their respective positions. The trial court granted Baker Hughes’s requested relief and denied Schlumberger’s motion. Schlumberger appealed. The Texas Court of Appeals for the First District concluded that (a) it had jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal and (b) the parties agreed to let the arbitrators resolve their disagreement about the proper arbitral forum for their dispute and that the trial court should have compelled arbitration of that issue. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court’s order denying Schlumberger’s motion and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

Definitive Creative Impasse-Breaking Techniques in Mediation, a resource for mediators and attorneys, has been recently released by the New York State Bar Association. Edited by Molly Klapper, J.D., Ph.D., it contains chapters written by leading practitioners, trainers, academics, and judges, including John DeGroote (contributor of this blog), Professor Vivian Berger, Professor Dwight Golann, Hon. William A. Dreier, Laura A. Kaster, and Hon. Barbara Byrd Wecker. You can order the book here.