Restoring Bankruptcy’s Fresh Start

The discharge injunction, which allows former debtors to be free from any efforts to collect former debt, is a primary feature of bankruptcy law in the United States. When creditors have systemically violated debtors’ discharge injunctions, some debtors have attempted to challenge those creditors through a class action lawsuit in bankruptcy court. However, the pervasiveness of class-waiving arbitration clauses likely prevents those debtors from disputing discharge injunction violations outside of binding, individual arbitration. This Note first discusses areas of disagreement regarding how former debtors may enforce their discharge injunctions. Then, it examines the types of disputes that allow debtors to collectivize in bankruptcy court. Without seeking to resolve either disagreement, this Note assumes debtors may collectivize in this context and employs an “inherent conflict” test that looks to whether disputes over discharge injunction violations are arbitrable. Because the “inherent conflict” test likely leads to the conclusion that courts must enforce class-waiving arbitration clauses, this Note argues that Congress should amend the Bankruptcy Code not only to provide debtors an express right of action under § 524 and the ability to collectivize, but also to prohibit the arbitration of these claims. Doing so will give full effect to the discharge injunction and fulfill the promise to debtors that they can truly begin anew after bankruptcy

The English law approach to arbitrability of disputes

The arbitrability of disputes under English law was not given a statutory character by the Arbitration Act 1996. The Arbitration Act 1996 contains provisions that could address the topic indirectly, however, it is not clear how and if arbitrability could be found within the Act as the approach is rather tangential. It was left for the case law to define arbitrability and regulate its application but in relation to its definition, the approach has not been successful. Albeit this scenario, it does not mean that there is no arbitrability of disputes under English law, on the contrary, several cases have been deciding issues of arbitrability. Therefore, this article analyses the arbitrability of disputes in English law through the lens of the Arbitration Act 1996 and the case law regarding specific subjects in which the issue has been raised. The study demonstrates that there is a confusion regarding the definition of arbitrability and argues that its application under English law needs clarification

BG Group and “Conditions” to Arbitral Jurisdiction

Although the Supreme Court has over the last decade generated a robust body of arbitration caselaw, its first decision in the area of investment arbitration under a Bilateral Investment Treaty was only handed down in 2014. BG Group v. Argentina was widely anticipated and has attracted much notice, and general approval, on the part of the arbitration community. In this paper we assess the Court’s decision from two different perspectives—the first attempts to situate it in the discourse of the American law of commercial arbitration; the second considers it in light of the expectations of the international community surrounding the proper construction of Conventions between states. Our initial goal had been to write jointly, with the hope that we could bridge our differences to find, if not common, at least neighboring, ground. On some points we did so, but ultimately our divergent appreciations of the proper way to interpret the condition precedent in the investment treaty in BG Group overcame the idealism with which we commenced the project. Nonetheless we have decided to present the two papers together to emphasize the dichotomous approaches to treaty interpretation that two moderately sensible people, who inhabit overlapping but non-congruent interpretive communities, can have.The Kay Bailey Hutchison Center for Energy, Law, and Busines

Arbitration Case Law Update 2012

Parties to arbitration agreements sometimes invoke the judicial system to litigate collateral issues arising out of the arbitration process, such as arbitrability of some or all of the claims, arbitrator bias, and award enforcement or vacatur. When deciding these collateral issues arising out of securities arbitration, courts interpret and apply the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). This chapter identifies recent decisions by the Supreme Court under the FAA, as well as selected lower court decisions that could have an impact on securities arbitration practice

Arbitration Case Law Update 2015

This chapter identifies decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and selected federal circuit and high state courts in the past year that interpret and apply the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and could have an impact on securities arbitration practice

Arbitrability of competition law disputes

The article analyses the arbitrability of antitrust claims. A detailed discussion of US, non-European and EU case-law, and academic literature provides an overview of the key restrictions to the arbitrability of antitrust claims. In the first section, authors analyse the rationale behind non-arbitrability of antitrust claims. Moreover, by the analysis of the evolution of the legal doctrine the authors show that arbitrability of competition law disputes per se is no longer being questioned in international commercial arbitration. Civil law consequences deriving from the infringement of competition law between individual parties may be referred to the international commercial arbitration. Next, the article provides in-depth analysis of the case-law of US courts, the CJEU, EU Member States courts, which dealt with the questions of arbitrability of antitrust claims. The case-law eliminates the worries of the regulatory authorities that imperative competition laws will not be obeyed by arbitrators as arbitration awards may be reviewed and set aside or unenforced where appropriate. Finally, Lithuanian Law on Commercial Arbitration is discussed drawing attention to the need to observe the trends of international commercial arbitration and follow aforementioned CJEU case-law which recognizes arbitrability of antitrust claims and sets particular obligations towards national courts when recognizing and enforcing arbitral awards

International Arbitration and the Republic of Colombia: Commercial, Comparative and Constitutional Concerns From a U.S. Perspective

This article undertakes the first comparative analysis of Colombian arbitration law in English, setting Colombian statutory and case law side by side with international and U.S. law to provide U.S. parties with the information they need to (1) evaluate the risks and benefits associated with entering into an arbitration agreement with a Colombian party and (2) establish the kinds of procedures needed to provide optimal protection of the arbitral process and any resulting award. Not only does this research discuss important comparative and commercial matters, it also considers how a unique type of constitutional challenge - the acción de tutela - affects arbitration law in Colombia