Steptoe LLP
3 Experts
4 Contributions by Steptoe LLP Experts
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note considers the availability of anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration from New York courts.
LexisNexis® UK does not report citations to US judgments. Parties that have committed to arbitration may, once a dispute surfaces, reconsider that choice—particularly if one believes a court might deliver a more advantageous result. However, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) obliges courts to stay proceedings ‘brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration...until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement’, so long as the party seeking the stay has not ‘default in proceeding with such arbitration’ or otherwise relinquished its right to arbitrate (9 U.S.C. § 3; Katz v Cellco P’ship, 794 F.3d 341, 345 (2d Cir. 2015)).
For years, US federal courts
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note
This Practice Note reviews the availability of emergency and interim measures in aid of arbitration in New York, United States of America. New York is a jurisdiction supportive of arbitration, and its courts will, where warranted, issue emergency or interim relief to assist arbitral proceedings. Such relief can be pursued both before a claim is filed and during the pendency of the arbitration. The Note highlights the principal types of urgent remedies available under the United States Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA), which governs arbitrations involving interstate or international commerce, together with New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules, the procedural code applied in the state courts of New York. At the outset, turning to a court may not be required. Many arbitral institutions provide mechanisms enabling parties to seek urgent measures from the arbitral tribunal, or from an
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
Judicial enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards in New York
Arbitration has emerged as the predominant means by which parties across the globe settle disputes outside the courts. It rests on the parties’ consent—express or implied—typically recorded in an arbitration clause within a private contract or a treaty. Even when parties choose to arbitrate, the courts remain vital to ensuring the process is effective. Crucially, they may compel a resistant party to arbitrate or to honour an arbitral award.
This Practice Note considers the judicial enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards in New York. In New York, enforcement is usually straightforward. The federal courts there possess deep experience and expertise in enforcing international arbitral awards. In doing so, they apply a robust federal common law policy favouring arbitration. See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v Soler
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
Class action litigation has long been a fixture of US courts, its modern trajectory often linked to the US Supreme Court’s decision in Green Tree Financial Corp v Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) (Bazzle). US case law recognises that class disputes may proceed in arbitration where an arbitration agreement allows it. Persistent uncertainties remain, however, about what amounts to consent to class arbitration and whether that gateway issue is for a court or an arbitral tribunal to decide. Nevertheless, several prominent arbitral institutions have introduced rules addressing class arbitration. Note: the US judgments mentioned in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis UK.
What is class action dispute resolution?
Class actions were created to manage alike claims held by many claimants within a single proceeding. A representative plaintiff brings the case on behalf of others in comparable positions and applies to the court to
Arbitration
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
