We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 39

Second Circuit holds contractual forum selection clause supersedes FINRA mandatory arbitration rule

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 29 2014

On August 21, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided two closely watched appeals regarding the intersection of Financial Industry

District court rules that individual LLC member is third-party beneficiary and bound by arbitration agreement

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 21 2012

The US District Court for the Southern District of Florida confirmed that third-party beneficiaries of a contract containing an arbitration clause may be

State law governs determination of whether non-signatory can be compelled to arbitrate

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2010

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded a ruling by a district court that an injured worker could not be compelled to arbitrate against his former employer's insurer

SEC approves FINRA’s request to increase the number of arbitrators on NLSS lists

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 16 2010

The Securities and Exchange Commission has approved a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rule proposal to increase the number of arbitrators on lists generated by the "Neutral List Selection System," a computer system that generates random lists of arbitrators from FINRA's roster of arbitrators for arbitration cases

Contractual right to arbitration forfeited by refusal to respond to discovery requests

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 27 2009

A federal district court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a contractual dispute pursuant to the contract’s mandatory arbitration clause where the same defendants had defaulted in an arbitration proceeding commenced by plaintiffs two years ago involving the same dispute

Late service provides basis for denial of motion to vacate arbitration award

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 2 2009

A federal court has denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award where notice of the motion was served four days after the statutory period for such service

Arbitration award based on contract provision not addressed by parties upheld

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 9 2009

Plaintiff, a vice president of sales and marketing, commenced an arbitration against his employer (i2) alleging that i2 had failed to pay him approximately $2.7 million in sales commissions due under his Account Manager Compensation Plan (the Contract

FAA does not authorize arbitrators to compel pre-hearing discovery from non-parties

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 5 2008

In reversing a district court’s order enforcing an arbitral subpoena under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. Section 7, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the FAA does not authorize arbitrators to issue pre-hearing document discovery subpoenas to entities that are not parties to such proceedings

TIA victory for owner participants in Second Circuit Delta ruling

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 14 2010

On June 22 2010 the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down a decision which has important implications for the holders of tax indemnification agreement (TIA) claims arising from aircraft leveraged leasing transactions

Second Circuit rules that Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower claims are arbitrable

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 17 2008

The plaintiff, defendant’s Director of Internal Audit, believed that defendant’s internal audit department was ineffective and “without independence or objectivity.”