Temple Law sent two teams of students to Villanova Law’s first-ever baseball arbitration negotiation competition. Both teams made it to the second day of negotiations, and Temple Law won the entire competition.
In Woodbridge Wind-Down Entity v. Monsoon Blockchain Storage, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) addressed the enforceability of an arbitration provision in connection with a post-petition contract entered into by the debtors and a non-debtor counterparty. The Court first concluded that Paragraph 22(B) did provide for the arbitration of disputes under the APA. However, the Court then found that the Addendum represented the parties’ actual intent and that its language controlled. In light of the Addendum’s unambiguous language, the Court concluded that the parties did not agree to arbitrate claims under the APA.
On April 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Lamps Plus, Inc., et. al. v. Varela, No 17-988. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court held that an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the requisite contractual basis to support a finding that the parties agreed to submit a dispute to class arbitration.
Temple Law’s own Professor Pamela Bookman discusses arbitration with respect to international commercial litigation. #Temple10Q
Ruling in a class action brought against Uber Technologies, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently held that the company’s arbitration clause could not be enforced because it was not “reasonably communicated” to its customers during the online contracting process. The decision is a stark reminder that great attention needs to
Samuel M. Ward and Michael A. Toomey (LAW ’10) discuss the impact of mandatory arbitration in company charters on investors