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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 171

Do I really have to ask?
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • May 29 2014

On May 23, 2014, the Supreme Court of Texas, in Tenaska Energy Inc. v. Ponderosa Pine Energy LLC, 2014 Tex. Lexis 427, reaffirmed the duty of a


Supreme Court hears oral argument on the scope of judicial review of arbitral awards
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • November 14 2007

On Wednesday, November 7, 2007, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., No. 06-989, in which the court is examining whether parties can contract for arbitration agreements that allow for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision beyond that which is already provided for in the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"


New York federal court finds that arbitration awards should not be sealed
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • May 7 2008

In a recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court held that, despite the confidential nature of arbitration proceedings, a party seeking to confirm an arbitration award in court must establish some justifiable reason as to why the award and any documents filed in conjunction with the petition to confirm should remain confidential in order to overcome the strong presumption against sealing judicial records and prevent public access


Court reinforces federal policy favoring arbitration
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • May 2 2008

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held that plaintiff, who first initiated arbitration against the defendant’s subsidiary but then commenced a lawsuit against its parent, must establish the subsidiary's liability in arbitration before filing any claims that purport to pierce the subsidiary's corporate veil


First Circuit: arbitration decision bars insured from litigating coverage issues
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 14 2013

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the doctrine of issue preclusion barred an insured from litigating


Class waiver provisions in arbitration agreements are enforceable, regardless of arbitration costs to individual plaintiff, says United States Supreme Court.
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • July 5 2013

A recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in American Express Co. et al. v. Italian Colors Restaurant et al., __ U.S. __ (June 20, 2013


No right to New York review of arbitration decision under Bermuda form arbitration clause
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • United Kingdom, USA
  • August 10 2007

A recent ruling from the English Commercial Court illuminates one risk with the use of the Bermuda form arbitration clause: if the losing party is dissatisfied with the arbitration result, it may not be permitted to challenge the result under New York law in a New York court, but may instead be limited to challenging the arbitration award under English law in an English court


Federal district court in Connecticut appoints umpire in reinsurance arbitration
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • August 3 2007

In a dispute concerning the appointment of an umpire in a reinsurance arbitration, the federal district court of Connecticut held that it, and not the parties, should appoint the umpire and appointed Robert M. Hall to serve on the arbitration panel


Second Circuit establishes a new standard for arbitrator bias
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • July 26 2007

A recent decision originating from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has established a new standard for determining issues of arbitrator bias


Nevada court vacates arbitrator's award of punitive, other damages
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • October 10 2007

Recently, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada vacated an arbitration panel's award that consisted of, among other things, punitive damages, finding that the award was in manifest disregard of the law and outside the scope of the panel's jurisdiction