Скачать или смотреть Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v AnimalFeeds International Corp. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.; 130 S.Ct. 1758, 559 U.S. 662 (2010)

Arbitration can be an effective and comparatively inexpensive means of alternative dispute resolution. But can parties be forced to give up their rights to litigate in court in favor of arbitration? The United States Supreme Court considered that question in Stolt Nielsen versus AnimalFeeds International.

A parcel tanker is an ocean going vessel with multiple compartments designed to hold different liquid cargos. A tanker’s owner charters one or more compartments to a customer pursuant to a standard contract, known as a charter party. Different industries use standard charter parties that are customized to that industry.

AnimalFeeds International supplied raw ingredients to animal feed producers throughout the world. AnimalFeeds chartered parcel tankers from various shipping companies, all using a standard charter party known as Vegoilvoy. The Vegoilvoy charter party included an arbitration clause. Disputes would be resolved in New York in proceedings governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, and a federal court could enter a judgment pursuant to an arbitration award. The arbitration clause didn’t mention arbitration of class action claims.

Stolt Nielsen was one shipping company that AnimalsFeeds used. In two thousand three, the U S Department of Justice found that Stolt Nielsen participated in an illegal price fixing conspiracy. AnimalFeeds brought a class action antitrust lawsuit in federal court against Stolt Nielsen and other implicated shipping companies.

AnimalFeeds then demanded class arbitration, seeking to represent parcel tanker customers. The parties agreed that an arbitration panel would decide whether the charter party’s arbitration clause authorized class arbitration.

The panel concluded that the arbitration clause didn’t specifically prohibit class arbitration. Therefore, AnimalFeeds’s demand for class arbitration was valid. A federal district court subsequently vacated the arbitrators’ decision. The Second Circuit reversed, reinstating the arbitrators’ decision. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stolt-n...

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stolt-n...

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Facebook   / quimbeedotcom  

Twitter   / quimbeedotcom  

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries