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.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 105

Arbitration of non-arbitrable claim ordered since it was collateral to an unpleaded arbitrable claim asserted as a set-off

  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 23 2009

OrbitCom, Inc. (“OrbitCom”) brought suit against Qwest Communications Corp. (“Qwest”) seeking the recovery of telecommunications access fees

Third Circuit confirms that Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law deeming class arbitration waivers unconscionable

  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 12 2011

The Third Circuit reversed a prior decision and held that, under the Supreme Court’s ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a New Jersey law providing that class arbitration waivers in consumer adhesion contracts are unconscionable is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act

In the courts

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 22 2010

On November 16, 2010, the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss filed by Google and HTC and a motion to compel arbitration filed by T-Mobile in a putative class action claiming that the Nexus One mobile phone (or Google Phone) is defective by not maintaining connectivity to T-Mobile's 3G mobile network

An update on ERISA attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine under ERISA's “fiduciary exception"

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 1 2011

This month, we provide an update on the developing law regarding the “fiduciary exception” to attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine

Bills would limit mandatory arbitration clauses

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 24 2011

On October 18th, the Los Angeles Times reported on S. 987, the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would make consumer, employment, and civil rights arbitration agreements unenforceable, and S. 1652, the Consumer Mobile Fairness Act, which would make arbitration agreements in cell phone contracts unenforceable

General counsel update

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • China, European Union, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Mongolia, Singapore, United Kingdom, USA
  • -
  • July 11 2012

This is the thirtieth in our series of general counsel updates which aim to summarise major developments in key areas

Developments in intercarrier compensation

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 21 2010

On June 15, 2010, Sprint Spectrum LP, dba Sprint PCS and Nextel West Corp. informed the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) that they will elect third-party mediation to resolve a dispute with AT&T Missouri

Defendant waived arbitration rights by failing to assert affirmative defense

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 20 2009

Customers of NECC Telecom (NECC), a telephone service provider, brought an action against NECC asserting, among other things, violations of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 and the Federal Communications Commission's Truth-in-Billing Act

Advisory-debate continues over class action waivers in consumer contracts

  • Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2011

Within days of the U.S. Supreme Court issuing its groundbreaking AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion et ux. decision, clearing the way for class arbitration waivers in consumer agreements, industry publications speculated as to whether the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection will act under the Dodd-Frank Act to undo Concepcion

Ninth Circuit applies Oregon law to find class action waiver unenforceable

  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 1 2009

The Ninth Circuit recently concluded that a district court improperly dismissed a consumer class action pursuant to an arbitration agreement between a wireless provider and its customers, holding that the agreement’s class action waiver was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable under Oregon law