The Fifth Circuit recently refused to vacate an arbitration award, despite the loser’s arguments that: the arbitrators decided claims outside the scope of the arbitration agreement; and the winner’s expert used incorrect damage numbers in his testimony. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. v. Garrett, 2012 WL 5209985 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2012). 

At issue in

The Eleventh Circuit has “ironed out a wrinkle” in Alabama’s arbitration jurisprudence that seemed to find executors outside the scope of arbitration contracts signed by the decedent. 

In Entrekin v. Internal Medicine Assocs. of Dothan, P.A., ___ F.3d __, 2012 WL 3208641 (11th Cir. Aug. 9, 2012), the district court had denied a nursing home’s

The Fifth Circuit just issued a decision openly disagreeing with how the Second Circuit has interpreted both the Stolt-Nielsen decision and case law regarding the level of deference that courts owe arbitrators.  In Reed v. Florida Metropolitan Univ., Inc., __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 1759298 (5th Cir. May 18, 2012), the Fifth Circuit vacated

Although courts and practitioners may think of the Stolt-Nielsen decision as the death knell of class arbitration, the Third Circuit’s ruling last week serves as a reminder that the Stolt-Nielsen did not deal a mortal blow.  In fact, in Sutter v. Oxford Health Plans LLC, __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 1088887 (3d Cir. April

The Sixth and Second Circuits addressed whether to vacate an arbitrator’s award recently.  The Sixth Circuit vacated the award of an arbitrator who “exceeded his powers,” while the Second Circuit refused to vacate for “evident partiality.” 

 Based on the parties’ agreement, the Sixth Circuit considered vacatur under the Michigan Arbitration Act.  In particular, the appellant

The Second Circuit just held that a federal court has the power to enjoin an ongoing arbitration.  In re Am. Express Fin. Advisors Sec. Litig., ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 5222784  (2nd Cir. 2011).  While many litigants would no doubt like a federal court to enjoin their arbitrations — especially when arbitrators refuse to