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
© 2024 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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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