During its 2010 and 2011 terms, the U.S. Supreme Court decided three high-profile arbitration law cases, each focusing on what the court described in the third case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, as the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) overarching purpose “to ensure the enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their terms so as to facilitate informal, streamlined proceedings.” 1
Concepcion was preceded by Stolt-Nielsen v. Animal Feeds International 2 and Rent-A-Center, West v. Jackson . 3 In Stolt-Nielsen , the Supreme Court held that a party to an arbitration agreement cannot be compelled to submit to class arbitration absent a “contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so.” 4 Thus, where an agreement to arbitrate is silent on the subject, and a meeting of the minds cannot otherwise be inferred, a court or arbitrator may not compel a party to engage in a class arbitration. 5
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
