The Third Circuit refused to vacate an arbitrator’s award, despite allegations that she failed to disclose contributions the defendant’s parent company had made to her judicial campaign and failed to disclose that she co-taught a seminar with in-house counsel for the defendant’s parent company.  Freeman v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, __ F.3d __, 2013 WL

In the last post, the Fifth Circuit affirmed an arbitration award against Morgan Keegan.  The Ninth Circuit just affirmed an arbitration award against Morgan Keegan in a sister case.  In less than two pages, the Ninth Circuit rejected Morgan Keegan’s arguments that the arbitrators were partial or exceeded their power.  Morgan Keegan & Co. v.

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 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

What is an arbitrator to do after concluding that the parties’ entire agreement — the same agreement that authorized the arbitration proceeding — is invalid?  That is the question that the California Court of Appeal addressed this week.  The California court ruled that the arbitrator was authorized to reach a decision on the merits of