Finding that trust in the neutrality of the adjudicative process is the bedrock of the FAA, New York Supreme Court Judge Lawrence Marks vacated an award in favor of the Washington Nationals in a dispute over television fees. TRC Sports Broadcasting Holding v. WN Partner, 652044/2014, Nov. 4, 2015. The Court found that Proskauer Rose’s representation of Major League Baseball, the arbitrators and the Nationals over the objections of Petitioner MASN (previously TRC Sports) and the Baltimore Orioles was ‘unquestionably inconsistent with impartiality’. [Read more…]
California Upholds Arbitration Clause in Consumer Contract
August 11, 2015 by
In a long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court held that SCOTUS’s decision in Concepcion requires enforcement of the class action waiver but does not limit the unconscionability rules applicable to other provisions of the arbitration agreement. Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC, (August 3, 2015) __ Cal. 4th __, S1999119. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the arbitration clause, which was in a standard automobile contract, unconscionable. The Court, in a thorough analysis of each of the arbitration agreement’s provisions, did not find any of the challenged terms unconscionable. [Read more…]
Second Circuit Vacates, In Part, An Injunction in Aid of Arbitration
May 13, 2015 by
The Second Circuit holds that the district court went too far when it enjoined a party from arguing to the arbitral panel for an extended cure period in the event it was determined to have breached a license agreement. Benihana, Inc. v. Benihana of Tokyo, LLC. No. 14-841, (2nd. Cir. April 28, 2015). When a dispute is properly before an arbitral panel, a district court should not interfere with the arbitral process on the ground that, in its view of the merits, a particular remedy would not be warranted.
Benihana alleged that Benihana of Tokyo breached the License Agreement by offering Beniburgers at its Honolulu location. The Agreement between the parties required an approval of new menu items and burgers were not on the approved list. After numerous legal skirmishes, and in spite of its agreement to stop selling burgers, Benihana of Tokyo blatantly continued to do so. When Benihana discovered that Benihana of Tokyo was now selling ‘Tokyo Burgers’, it terminated the Agreement for good cause claiming that Benihana had failed to cure within thirty days, and had received three notices of default within twelve months. Not to be deterred, Benihana of Tokyo continued its quest to ‘wait to cure’ if, as a result of the arbitration, it was found to have breached the license agreement by selling burgers. [Read more…]