Life sciences globalization fuels new developments in international arbitration
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires federal courts to enforce agreements to arbitrate that impact interstate commerce. The FAA and its body of case law are binding on state courts and many states have adopted similar...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided an issue concerning cases that are subject to arbitration that has divided the federal courts of appeals: when the claims at issue in a federal court suit are subject to arbitration, does...more
Conflicts of interest are of great interest to law firms, prosecutors, and arbitrators. In two major international arbitrations, parties are seeking review by the United States Supreme Court of the standard that courts...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s arbitration award because the district court lacked proper subject matter jurisdiction, independent from the Federal Arbitration Act...more
The standard that courts should apply in deciding whether to vacate an arbitration award based on arbitrator conflicts of interest is drawing increased focus in appeals to the United States Supreme Court. As this blog...more
UN Member States Adopt Code of Conduct for Arbitrators in Investor-State Disputes - At its 56th annual session held in Vienna in July 2023, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) formally...more
US Case Law Update - The U.S. Supreme Court and appellate courts have issued several recent decisions on important topics related to arbitration and the ability to enforce awards and judgments in the United States....more
The US Supreme Court has opened the door for foreign plaintiffs to sue under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). RICO is a powerful statute that allows recovery of treble damages and attorneys’ fees...more
On June 22, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 opinion in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin, holding that a foreign award creditor may bring claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) related to the...more
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin opens the door for foreign plaintiffs to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) as an additional tool for collecting on international...more
The US Supreme Court has opened the door for foreign plaintiffs to sue under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), which provides treble damages and attorneys’ fees, to assist enforcement of an...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently confirmed that foreign companies looking to enforce international arbitration awards have a powerful tool at their disposal: a U.S. statute targeting organized criminal activity. In Yegiazaryan...more
On June 22, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as the RICO statute, may be used to enforce a foreign arbitration award. The Court’s opinion in...more
We recently wrote about the Eleventh Circuit’s May 2022 decision in Corporacion AIC, S.A. v. Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A. (AICSA v. HSR), holding that FAA grounds for vacating domestic arbitration awards are not available...more
This term, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has authored a pair of opinions related to arbitration. The first of these decisions, Badgerow v. Walters, 20-1143, 142 S. Ct. 1310 (2022) came down on March 31, 2022, where...more
In an 8-1 decision, the United States Supreme Court recently held in Badgerow v. Walters that federal courts may not examine the substance of arbitration disputes to establish federal question jurisdiction under Sections 9...more
On 31 March 2022, the United States Supreme Court in Badgerow v. Walters limited federal subject matter jurisdiction over post-arbitration award petitions under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) §§ 9 and 10. After years of...more
On March 31, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued an important decision regarding federal courts’ subject matter jurisdiction to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal...more
Last week in Badgerow v. Walters, the United States Supreme Court held in an 8-1 decision that under the Federal Arbitration Act, a federal court cannot consider an underlying dispute to determine whether it has federal...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, unlike petitions to compel arbitration, petitions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award cannot be brought in federal court simply because the underlying dispute involves a federal...more
The US Supreme Court has limited the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear motions to vacate or confirm domestic arbitral awards. In Badgerow v. Walters, the Court considered whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) creates...more
On March 31, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Badgerow v. Walters, No 20-1143, addressing when federal courts have jurisdiction to rule on motions to confirm, modify, or vacate arbitration...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts cannot enforce or vacate arbitration awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., unless they have an independent...more
In a nearly unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court recently held in Badgerow v. Walters that a district court cannot “look through” to the underlying controversy in order to support jurisdiction to decide a motion...more
Our prior blog articles predicted that the outcome in Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143, might turn on whether the plain text of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or its purposes would prevail. See our June 16 and Nov. 9, 2021...more