Brushing back an effort to harness a standard set forth a few years ago by the Third Circuit on arbitration agreement language, a state appeals court has ruled that failure to mention specific statutory rights being waived didn’t doom an arbitration clause in a dispute between an investor and her adviser.

In arguing against compelled arbitration, the plaintiff in Lueddeke v. Mazza pointed to Moon v. Breathless, a 2017 precedential decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that set out a three-part test for arbitrability of claims arising out of statute.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

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]