Law360, New York (April 16, 2013, 2:00 PM EDT) -- On March 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. John Ivan Sutter, the latest case to address the evolving federal common law of arbitrability. Oxford Health represents the collision of two major rules governing the Federal Arbitration Act. On one hand is the long-entrenched principle of extremely narrow review prescribed by § 10 of the FAA, a rule rendering arbitration awards virtually unreviewable where the arbitrator undertakes to perform interpretation of a contract, no matter how legally or factually wrong that interpretation may be. On the other hand is the principle established in the 2010 and 2011 cases Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, that class action arbitration is "fundamentally incompatible" with FAA bilateral arbitration....
Law360 is on it, so you are, too.
A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.
