On April 27, 2011, exactly one year to the date that Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010) was decided, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion et ux., 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), reinforcing Stolt-Nielsen’s ruling that arbitration agreements must be enforced as written, and expanding that decision to include arbitration agreements containing express bans on classwide proceedings. In Stolt-Nielsen, the Supreme Court interpreted an arbitration agreement that was silent regarding class claims, and held that absent express consent, a party may not be compelled to submit to class arbitration. Stolt-Nielsen, 130 S. Ct. at 1775. In Concepcion, the Supreme Court expanded upon this precedent and held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts a California rule finding arbitration agreements that expressly disallow class-wide proceedings under certain circumstances to be unconscionable and thus unenforceable. The significance of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 Concepcion ruling is discussed below.
View PDF
