Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): arbitration before AAA was barred because the plaintiffs had executed an arbitration agreement stating that all controversies would be determined by arbitration before the NASD, the NYSE, the AMEX, or any recognized arbitration facility provided by any exchange. Id. at 1119. Thus, the defendants argued that AAA was not a proper forum since AAA was not named as a forum in the arbitration agreement. Id. This Court held that the AMEX Window operates as a default provision in the absence of a specific agreement between the parties. Id. at 1120. Thus, this Court concluded that the AMEX Window was superseded by the arbitration agreement and that under the arbitration agreement, AAA was not an available arbitration forum. Id. See also Merrill Lynch v. Georgiadis, 903 F.2d 109 (2nd Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); PaineWebber, Inc. v. Rutherford, 903 F.2d 106 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an aaa arbitration was a private proceeding and therefore that a decision by the arbitrator pursuant to the federal arbitration act did not constitute state action (B) holding that a specific customer agreement can supersede the amex constitution and requiring arbitration before one of the fora named in the agreement (C) holding that an arbitration in accordance with aaa rules is a binding arbitration (D) holding that the arbitration provision naming particular arbitration fora superseded the amex constitution closed the amex window and precluded arbitration before aaa who was not named in the arbitration provision (E) holding that a dispute arising out of an insurance policy was not covered by the arbitration provision in the parties separate premium payment agreement because if the party had intended to subject this dispute to the arbitration provision it could easily clearly and unequivocally have done so either by including an arbitration provision in the insurance policy itself or by adding to the above arbitration provision
Output (English): holding that an aaa arbitration was a private proceeding and therefore that a decision by the arbitrator pursuant to the federal arbitration act did not constitute state action