Friday, August 1, 2008
Continuing the live-blogging from SEALS, Ediberto Roman (Florida Int'l) is moderating a discussion of the FAA and of proposals to amend the FAA to ban mandatory arbitration clauses, especially in employment and consumer contracts. Margaret Moses (Loyola-Chicago) points out that Congress essentially found such clauses predatory in the context of a recent statute prohibiting the clauses in payday loans to service men and women. Jean Sternlight (UNLV) argues that companies imposing no-class-action provisions in arbitration agreements are motivated not by a desire for arbitral class actions, but by a desire to avoid class actions entirely. Richard Reuben (Missouri) is discussing the provision in the pending legislation to reverse the Supreme Court's separability doctrine. Steve Ware (Kansas) is discussing the difficulty of getting good empirical evidence comparing arbitral and litigated outcomes. All agree that although there is little chance of the FAA being amended this year, chances may go up substantially after the November elections.