Litigation: Part 1—20 things to consider when negotiating arbitration provisions
Arbitration can be a valuable dispute-resolution tool where confidentiality is important, when you want to specify jurisdiction or venue, in consumer cases, and in consumer or employment-related class actions.
January 17, 2013 at 02:55 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Arbitration can be a valuable dispute-resolution tool where confidentiality is important, when you want to specify jurisdiction or venue, in consumer cases, and in consumer or employment-related class actions. It pays to be proactive by identifying those disputes that should be litigated in court and those disputes that should be arbitrated. Lack of clarity or a misunderstanding as to which disputes should be in arbitration and which ones should be fought in court could land a company in a trial or an arbitration that can have huge drawbacks, such as a class action that could have been avoided by a waiver clause or a lengthy arbitration that could have been dismissed through a dispositive motion.
A. An annual check-up of arbitration provisions or practices
Performing an annual check-up using the checklist below can help highlight any weaknesses that have come to light in your arbitration agreements in the previous year and can help gauge how effective arbitration has been for you as a dispute-resolution tool.
B. The checklist
- Specify whether the dispute will be decided by a single arbitrator or a three-arbitrator panel, who the arbitrator will be, or define the characteristics of the arbitrator or the panel. For example, do you wish the arbitrator to be a former judge, or a person with a construction or accounting expertise? Do you want the pool to include people who have a certain amount of experience trying cases or a particular sub-specialty, such as tax or M&A practice?
- Specify the location of the arbitration hearing.
- Specify whether the arbitrator is to determine the arbitrability of the claims.
- Specify applicable law with respect to both the enforceability of the arbitration agreement and to the underlying dispute (i.e. state law or federal law—which could make a difference on enforceability of class action waivers).
- Consider including entry of judgment language.
- Consider including a timetable to get to the hearing and a time limit for the hearing itself to improve efficiency and speed (i.e. arbitration hearing shall occur within 120 days of the case management conference and hearing shall not last longer than four business days).
- If there is potentially an inequality of bargaining power between the parties to the arbitration agreement (employment or consumer matters), specify that the company will pay for the arbitration costs.
- Specify whether any equitable relief (such as an injunction) can be issued.
- Specify whether the arbitrator must award attorneys fees to the prevailing party in vendor or business customer arbitration agreements or whether the arbitrator shall have the discretion to do so. If so, define prevailing party within the arbitration agreement.
- Assess whether to include a class action waiver in both employment arbitration agreements and consumer arbitration agreements in light of the most recent cases interpreting AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.
In our next column, we'll list the next 10 things to consider when negotiating or drafting an arbitration provision, including issues regarding discovery, dispositive motions and appeal.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1NBA Players Association Finds Its New GC in Warriors Front Office
- 2Prenuptial Agreement Spousal Support Waivers: Proceed With Caution
- 3DC Circuit Keeps Docs in Judge Newman's Misconduct Proceedings Sealed
- 4Litigators of the Week: US Soccer and MLS Fend Off Claims They Conspired to Scuttle Rival League’s Prospect
- 5Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250