George Friedman, a member of our Board of Directors, today presented “The Basics Of Securities Arbitration” to Seton Hall Law School’s Investor Advocacy Project. You can preview his presentation here. Friedman is also an adjunct law professor at Fordham University. The Basics of Security Arbitration from Arbitration Resolution Services
One of the major complaints about consumer arbitration is the hassle and expense of a consumer going on a road trip to attend the arbitration hearing to seek a recovery. A recent Second Circuit decision underscored this problem, and prompted me to write this blog post. In Duran v. The Hass Group, L.L.C., no. 12-3568-cv…
Before we know it, a new hockey season will be upon us. In that spirit, I report on a Federal Arbitration Act “preemption hat trick” that was completed August 12th by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts’ decision in McInnes v. LPL Financial, Inc., SJC-11356. For those not familiar with hockey, a “hat trick” occurs…
Another generally anti-arbitration court — this one in Massachusetts — seems to have gotten the U.S. Supreme Court’s memo that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws impinging on arbitration. See this excellent analysis of the latest reversal of Feeney v Dell by Deborah LaFetra in the PLF Liberty Blog.
Back in 1997, George Friedman, a member of the ARS Board of Directors, predicted and planned for the economic collapse of 2008, alternative energy needs, hybrid and electric cars, and now the future of arbitration. Check out his predictions that were applauded at the 2013 Securities Experts Roundtable in Boston.
In early May, bills were introduced in the House and Senate , attempting to breathe new life into the concept of a federal Arbitration Fairness Act (“AFA”). The bills would amend the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) by adding a new chapter invalidating predispute arbitration agreements (“PDAAs”) for consumer, investor, employment, or civil rights claims. The proposed legislation is similar to prior failed efforts to similarly amend the FAA going back at least to 2005.
This article analyzes the AFA of 2013 and concludes that, while a well- intended effort to address a legitimate concern – PDAAs imposed via an adhesion contract by dominant parties on weaker parties like consumers and employees – it in fact is a potentially dangerous overreaction that could end up harming those it intends to protect. The article closes with the author’s recommendation for a better way to address these concerns.