Failure to advance arbitration fees waives right to arbitrate In Roach v. BM Motoring, LLC, 155 A.3d 985 (N.J. 2017) (No. 077125) the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a party's failure to advance arbitration fees in a contract dispute automatically waives that party's right to enforce an arbitration clause. In a unanimous ruling, and its first on this question, the court said the failure to abide by contractual language mandating the advancement of arbitration fees amounts to a "material breach" of the contract, and therefore invalidates the arbitration clause. "A failure to advance required fees that results in the dismissal of an arbitration claim deprives a party of the benefit of the agreement," said Justice Lee Solomon writing for the court, "Therefore, the failure to advance fees 'goes to the essence' of the [dispute resolution agreement] and amounts to a material breach." To permit a party to fail to advance arbitration fees would result in allowing that party to delay dispute resolution without fear of reprisal, Justice Solomon said. Consumer protection from arbitration in the US Mandatory arbitration clauses are found in the fine print of tens of millions of financial products, from credit cards to checking accounts in the US. Republicans are targeting a rule that would let consumers band together to sue their banks or credit card companies in class-action lawsuits rather than having to use an arbitrator to resolve a dispute. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalised the rule last month. The rule bans most types of mandatory arbitration clauses. The agency said people who otherwise have to go it alone in resolving a financial dispute
should be able to join others in a class-action lawsuit to pursue a remedy to their complaint. The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee is reported to have said that arbitration brings about quicker resolutions to financial disputes saying the average pay-out for consumers in a successful class-action case comes to $32.00, while the attorney who files the case generally makes nearly $1 million. While they've succeeded in overturning more than a dozen regulations finalised in the final months of Barack Obama's presidency, this is the first time Republicans are attempting to overturn a rule put into effect with President Donald Trump in office. Of course, the Trump administration isn't particularly fond of the agency that issued the rule, calling for its restructuring. Judge may vacate previous judgment enforcing foreign arbitral award A federal judge in New York had discretion to vacate a previously approved confirmation of a$57 million arbitration award against the government of Laos after the award was set aside by a foreign court at the arbitral seat, an appeals court ruled in Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd. v. Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, 10-CV-5256.