JDR Group Pic

Upcoming Events

Horizons: Conversations About Future Directions in Dispute Resolution

Thursday, January 29, 2015
5:00 – 9:00 PM | TBD

Friday, January 30,  2015
8:30 AM – 4:00 PM | TBD

 

104 – Regulatory

Shahla F. Ali & Antonio Da Roza, Alternative Dispute Resolution Design in Financial Markets- Some More Equal Than Others: Hong Kong’s Proposed Financial Dispute Resolution Center in the Context of the Experience  in the United Kingdom, United States, and Singapore, 21 Pac. Rim L. & Pol’y J. 485 (2012)
The role and function of dispute resolution methods in financial disputes is a function of analyzing whether the method can effectively regulate the knowledge/power gap through appropriate channels. Using Hong Kong as a case study, and many of the financial dispute mechanisms from the major financial markets, this article finds the appropriateness of a system of dispute resolution is dictated by whether it takes on a regulatory or non-regulatory role.
{60} ADR—GENERAL
{104} SUBJ MATTER: REGULATORY
 
Rebecca Callahan, Mediation Confidentiality: For California Litigants, Why Should Mediation Confidentiality be a Function of the Court in Which the Litigation is Pending? 12 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. 63 (2012).
Confidentiality is an essential and integral part of mediation. It encourages the exchange of information between the parties and promotes problem-solving and interest-based negotiations, which can yield more durable settlements.
{21} MEDIATION—GENERAL
{104} SUBJ MATTER: REGULATORY
 
Kenneth R. Davis, The End of an Error: Replacing “Manifest Disregard” with a New Framework for Reviewing Arbitration Awards, 60 Clev. St. L. Rev. 87 (2012).
This article discusses the standard of judicial review for errors in arbitration awards.  The author discusses the many standards the Supreme Court has used to determine whether an arbitration award should be reviewed, and how the differing decisions require a need to reconsider what the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards should be.
{44} ARBITRATION—GENERAL
{104} SUBJ MATTER: REGULATORY
{122} SETTLEMENT: ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT OR AWARD

Jacob Spencer, Note, Arbitration, Class Waivers, and Statutory Rights, 35 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 991 (2012).
This note describes when class waivers render otherwise valid arbitration agreements unenforceable because they would prevent plaintiffs from effectively vindicating their statutory rights.  Part I describes the doctrinal framework established by the Supreme Court. Part II argues that claims that class action waivers nullify state statutory rights cannot invalidate arbitration agreements after Conception. Part III considers several different arguments that class waivers undermine federal statutory rights in certain contexts.
{44} ARBITRATION—GENERAL
{104} SUBJ MATTER: REGULATORY

Aaron L. Wells, When “Yes” Means “No”: McCarran-Ferguson, the New York Convention, and the Limits of Congressional Assent, 12 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. 267 (2012).
Parties seeking to enforce arbitration agreements are attempting to exercise their bargained-for rights. Courts should not only rule in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements under these circumstances, but they should abide by the settled principles that the Foreign Commerce Clause and the treaty power establish, so that consistent, just results become the norm when this issue arises.
{44} ARBITRATION—GENERAL
{104} SUBJ MATTER: REGULATORY