The Supreme Court of Texas has ruled that a contract signatory was erroneously “required to arbitrate its non-contractual claims against non-signatories” in a crop insurance dispute.

Richard Chen, Associate Professor at the University of Maine School of Law, has published “Precedent and Dialogue in Investment Treaty Arbitration,” Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 60, 2019 (Forthcoming).  In his publication, Professor Chen provides readers with a comprehensive guide to utilizing investment treaty arbitration tribunal precedent.

The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari in yet another class arbitration dispute in the labor context. 

Based on initial feedback from the Global Pound Conference, a Mixed Modes Task Force has been set up by the College of Commercial Arbitrators (CCA), the International Mediation Institute (IMI) and the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine School of Law to examine possible new ways of combining mediation with arbitration.

By Holly Hayes Robert Bordone, Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program at Harvard Law School and co-editor of the widely used book “The Handbook of Dispute Resolution” discusses mistakes in the health care reform debate that could have been avoided by a better negotiation process in two interviews posted below. Watch the interview with Harvard Law Online: See this interview with CNN’s “Situation Room” hosted by Wolf Blitzer on February 24 (click here). Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at: holly@karlbayer.com.

By Holly Hayes Richard J. Webb, a guest-blogger on Disputing and author of the Healthcare Neutral ADR Blog, featured last week an excellent post on how the health care reform debate would look if it was mediated. Here is an excerpt: …. Leaving aside all of the ways in which the healthcare reform debate does not resemble the setting required for effective mediation, I began to imagine what I would do if thrust into a room with a commitment from both sides to mediate in good faith. Having reviewed the parties’ respective positions on numerous, individual proposals for reform, I first thought that there must be a way to parse and compromise among these proposals to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. But the more I thought about it, the clearer it became that such an effort would fail. I had an intuitive sense of why it would fail, but I struggled to explain that result in terms familiar to traditional mediation theory. In fact, I started a blog post on this subject, but put it aside, unfinished. Shortly after that, I read a description of the Frank Sander Lecture to be given by Professor Lawrence Susskind as the opening plenary of the ABA Dispute Resolution Section’s Annual Spring Conference on April 8th: “Values and Identity Conflicts: Proposing a New Dispute Resolution Doctrine.” The summary, which appears in the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution’s February Just Resolutions Enews (members only), turned on the light bulb in my head. Read the full post here. We appreciate Mr. Webb sharing his “light bulb” moment and welcome your comments on how the health care reform might look if it was mediated. Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at: holly@karlbayer.com.