skip to main content
Overview
Toggle Button Open

April 8, 2022

Law360

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision last week restricting federal courts' ability to confirm or vacate an arbitration award is clearly intended to cause arbitration practitioners to turn to state courts concerning petitions implicated by Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA, even when the underlying conflict between the parties in a case raises a federal question, Partner Stephen Newman tells Law360.

"The court spent a lot of time talking about how the division of workload between the federal and state court requires that state courts take more of the work in terms of assessing whether arbitration awards were issued in compliance with the law," he adds.

Click here to read more.

April 8, 2022

Law360

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision last week restricting federal courts' ability to confirm or vacate an arbitration award is clearly intended to cause arbitration practitioners to turn to state courts concerning petitions implicated by Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA, even when the underlying conflict between the parties in a case raises a federal question, Partner Stephen Newman tells Law360.

"The court spent a lot of time talking about how the division of workload between the federal and state court requires that state courts take more of the work in terms of assessing whether arbitration awards were issued in compliance with the law," he adds.

Click here to read more.

Professionals