Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Argentina appealed the district court's dismissal of its motion to extend where Argentina had violated a Bilateral Investment Treaty when it implemented several emergency measures in response to the nation's financial crisis. An arbitration panel determined that Argentina was liable to National Grid PLC, ("National Grid") which had been operating in Argentina under the auspices of the treaty. At issue was whether National Grid forfeited its timeliness defense, whether the district court erred in treating Argentina's motion to extend as moot, and whether the district court erred in ultimately finding service to be untimely. Also at issue was whether the district court erred in granting a confirmation motion without first giving Argentina the opportunity to raise defenses available under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. 201-208. The court rejected Argentina's argument that National Grid had forfeited its timeliness defense where it had expressly preserved this defense in the joint stipulation and then raised it in its first responsive pleading. The court also held that the district court had no authority to grant Argentina's motion to extend time to serve notice and therefore acted within its discretion in treating the motion as moot. Absent any evidence of timely service of notice, the court affirmed the dismissal of Argentina's motion to vacate the arbitral awards. The court further affirmed National Grid's cross-motion for recognition of the arbitral award where Argentina had ample time to raise defenses but made no attempt to raise such defects in the district court.

The employee's complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act was dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the employee was required to submit to alternative dispute resolution. After examining Puerto Rico contract law and the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1, the court concluded that continued employment of the at-will employee was sufficient consideration to support the agreement, despite the fact that the agreement did not bind both parties to identical procedures. The "threat" of termination did not amount to intimidation that would invalidate consent; state law does not prohibit termination without just cause. The employee's claim that she did not understand the document because of limited English did not constitute an excuse and the agreement was not unconscionable.

Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra ("Winklevosses") sought to intervene after a district court entered judgment enforcing the Term Sheet and Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") signed by Facebook, the Winklevosses, and the Winklevosses' competing social network site, ConnectU, where the Settlement Agreement envisioned that Facebook would acquire all of ConnectU's shares in exchange for cash and a percentage of Facebook's common stock. At issue was whether the Settlement Agreement was enforceable where the Winklevosses claimed that they did not discover the facts that gave rise to their Rule 10b-5 claims under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 ("Act") until after they signed the Settlement Agreement's release of claims and whether the releases foreclosed their challenge to the Settlement Agreement where section 29(a) of the Act precluded a mutual release of unknown securities fraud claims arising out of negotiations to settle a pending lawsuit. The court held that the district court correctly concluded that the Settlement Agreement was enforceable and intended to release claims arising out of the settlement negotiations where the release was valid under section 29(a) when the Settlement Agreement was meant to end a dispute between sophisticated parties acting in an adversarial setting that was characteristic of litigation and could not be interpreted as leaving open the door to litigation about the settlement process.

Residents of Missouri contracted with a Texas franchisor to operate tax preparation franchises near St. Louis. The contract contained an arbitration clause and identified Texas as the forum for both arbitration and litigation. When the businesses failed, the franchisees sued the Texas company in Illinois. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court noted that the parties had not briefed Texas law, but that the Illinois Franchise Act, 815 ILCS 705/4, allows out-of-state arbitration agreements, despite disallowing forum selection; the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1, strongly favors agreements for arbitration. Even if the Texas company knowingly authorized a franchise in Illinois, the arbitration clause justified dismissal. The district court did not have jurisdiction to order arbitration outside the district, but the issue was not waived. The court rejected claims of fraudulent inducement and unconscionability.