Shearman & Sterling’s US International Arbitration Digest (US IA Digest) provides a centralized resource for newly released decisions issued by US courts. The US IA Digest collects in one place important decisions on US international arbitration case law issued since January 1, 2016, compiled and organized into categories that are most relevant and useful to practitioners and other interested parties. The Digest will be updated on a rolling basis as new decisions are issued.
Circuit court reversed in part and affirmed in part district court’s confirmation of arbitral award. Court found that the arbitral tribunal erred in determining the correct interpretation of the contract (based on external evidence presented by both sides) at a “summary judgment” phase because California law requires that such finding be made after a full, evidentiary hearing.
Court reversed district court’s dismissal of two age discrimination lawsuits in favor of arbitration. Court held that there was no consent to arbitrate, especially since Pennsylvania law requires arbitration agreements to be “clear and unmistakable” and discourages finding arbitration agreements “by implication.”
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court found that while the party seeking to compel arbitration was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, it was the successor in interest to a company that had a right to enforce the arbitration agreement.
Court granted petition to compel arbitration. Court found that the claims pursued by petitioner fell within the scope of the arbitration provision and that the arbitration provision was valid and binding.
Circuit court affirmed lower court’s order compelling arbitration. Applying a presumption in favor of arbitrability, court found that the broad scope of the arbitration agreement encompassed the grievances and that the presumption in favor of arbitration was not rebutted.