Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Federal Arbitration Act
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc. (Slip Opinion, No. 06-989) had long been anticipated by the litigation and arbitration communities and has been the subject of extensive commentary and debate in the brief period since it was rendered. The issue (which had created a sharp conflict in the Circuits) was whether the standards for judicial review of arbitration awards, as set forth in Sections 9-11 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), could be contractually expanded by the arbitrating parties. More particularly, the question was whether parties could contract to inject traditional grounds for appeal into FAA arbitrations or whether they were limited to what was specifically set forth in Sections 9-11 of the FAA, e.g., 'evident partiality,' 'fraud,' 'corruption,' refusing to hear 'pertinent and material' evidence, and acts exceeding the powers of the arbitrator.
The Hall Street Court held that parties could not contractually expand the standards for judicial review in Sections 9-11 of the FAA. A likely, practical outgrowth of this ruling is that arbitrating parties will also be unable to contractually expand standards for judicial review under most if not all state arbitration statutes. This will make it more difficult for courts to overturn arbitration awards, and raises serious doubts about the continuing vitality of generally accepted decisions which hold that 'manifest disregard of the law' is a separate and distinct ground for challenging an arbitration award under the FAA.
Background
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.