Source: https://blog.cpradr.org/18-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:41:29+00:00

Document:
AT&T, the Justice Department claimed, would have greater bargaining leverage over rival TV distributors because the company would have valuable live content from Turner’s networks, like the sports that TNT carries and CNN’s news coverage. The Justice Department contended that AT&T could during negotiations threaten to “black out” Turner’s channels — that is, pull them from the rivals’ lineups — tempting customers to drop their current providers and switch to AT&T services like DirecTV. The Justice Department alleged that AT&T would also have the power to raise the prices its competitors pay for their content.
The AT&T acquisition offer ultimately included a “baseball arbitration” provision found in many Consent Orders and Consent Judgments from the DOJ and the US Federal Communications Commission intended to provide for “final offer” baseball arbitration of a competitor’s claim that the merged company was not offering non-discriminatory terms for use by the competitor on the competitor’s own network of content owned by the merged company. The arbitration would resolve the terms and conditions, including the economic terms, on which the competitor would be allowed to license for its own use content owned by the merged AT&/Time Warner company.
A week after the government filed suit to stop the proposed merger, Turner Broadcasting [which is owned by Time Warner] sent letters to approximately 1,000 distributors “irrevocably offering” to engage in “baseball style” arbitration at any time within a seven-year period, subject to certain conditions not relevant here. According to President of Turner Content Distribution Richard Warren, the offer of arbitration agreements was designed to “address the government’s concern that as a result of being . . . commonly owned by AT&T, [Turner Broadcasting] would have an incentive to drive prices higher and go dark with [its] affiliates,” …. In the event of a failure to agree on renewal terms, Turner Broadcasting agreed that the distributor would have the right to continue carrying Turner networks pending arbitration, subject to the same terms and conditions in the distributor’s existing contract.
Like the lower District Court ruling before, the Court of Appeals opinion (available at https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/390E66D6D58F426B852583AD00546ED6/%24file/18-5214.pdf) noted the impact of this arbitration structure on the DOJ’s arguments regarding the anti-competitive nature of the acquisition.
Moreover, the appeals panel quoted with apparent approval the lower court’s earlier acknowledgment that this arbitration structure would have “real world effects” on negotiations between AT&T/Time Warner, on the one hand, and its competitors, on the other hand, over renewal of licenses from Time Warner/Turner Broadcasting of content for use on a competitor’s networks.
Neither the model nor Professor Shapiro’s opinion [the report from DOJ’s expert witness] accounted for the effect of the irrevocably-offered arbitration agreements, which the district court stated would have “real world effects” on negotiations and characterized “as extra icing on a cake already frosted,” … another reason the government had not met its first-level burden of proof.
The bottom line here is that the “baseball arbitration” structure employed in the AT&T/Time Warner acquisition, as well as in earlier media transactions such as the Comcast-NBCU merger, has received a blessing from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals as a “real world” means of mitigating anti-competitive incentives arising when one party controls access to assets that a competitor must rely upon to remain competitive. Other industry examples of such a potentially anti-competitive situation include control by an oil & gas producer of crucial pipelines and and control a by power producer of crucial electricity transmission or distribution systems.
We shall have to see if the DOJ will seek US Supreme Court review of its defeat in this antitrust dispute.
In the picture (from left to right): Franco Gevaerd, Olivier P. André, and Piotr S. Wójtowicz.
From Feb. 4-8, 2019, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group II held its 69th session at the United Nations headquarters in New York. At this session, as set forth by the UNCITRAL during its 51st session, Working Group II commenced its deliberations on issues relating to expedited arbitration (see the Report of the UNCITRAL on the 51st session).
Given the CPR Institute’s international experience and expertise in international arbitration, the UNCITRAL Secretariat invited CPR to participate in the session as an observer delegation representing its views on expedited arbitration to facilitate Working Group II’s deliberations.
CPR sent a five-member delegation: Noah J. Hanft, President & CEO; Olivier P. André, Senior Vice President, International; Anna M. Hershenberg, Vice President, Programs and Public Policy & Corporate Counsel; Franco Gevaerd, International Consultant/Legal Intern; and Piotr S. Wójtowicz, Legal Intern.
Established in 1966 by the U.N. General Assembly, UNCITRAL plays an important role in developing an improved legal framework for international trade and investment, and in harmonizing and modernizing the law of these fields. The substantive preparatory work involved in doing that is typically assigned to UNCITRAL’s working groups (see the U.N.’s “A Guide to UNCITRAL”).
The UNCITRAL Working Group II is composed of UNCITRAL’s 60 member States and has been developing work focused on arbitration, conciliation and mediation, and dispute settlement. The group’s most recent project is the Singapore Convention. A signing ceremony for the convention is scheduled for Aug. 7, 2019. Now, as mentioned above, the group’s attention has turned to the topic of expedited arbitration.
Expedited arbitration aims to streamline the process to reduce its time and cost. This topic has long been discussed by the international arbitration community and explored by arbitration institutions, mostly due to concerns with the length, cost and undue formality in the process, especially in less complex cases.
At the beginning of the group’s deliberations, it was generally agreed that this session’s work should “focus on establishing an international framework on expedited arbitration, without prejudice to the form that such work might take.” After that, the work should then proceed to analyze aspects relating to emergency arbitrators, adjudication, early dismissal of claims, and preliminary determinations by arbitral tribunals.
During the session, Working Group II participants discussed in depth many issues related to key aspects of expedited arbitration, including how to foster efficiency while preserving quality, due process and fairness; enforcement of awards resulting from expedited arbitration; application of the expedited procedure, and management of the proceedings.
CPR’s contributed substantially to the discussion throughout the week. In the Working Group II session’s first day, Anna Hershenberg pointed out that since its foundation, CPR has focused on creating rules that aim at efficient dispute resolution and users’ autonomy. She noted that in order to foster efficiency, CPR has built into its domestic and international arbitration rules quick time frames. Consequently, CPR’s international and domestic arbitration cases historically take an average of slightly more than 11 months from commencement of the proceedings to the arbitral award.
Anna M. Hershenberg making her remarks during the session.
CPR administered and non-administered arbitration rules already provide for time requirements which limit the length of proceedings. Users of CPR arbitration often customize their arbitration clauses to further limit these time requirements. In 2006, CPR also promulgated a fast-track procedure to supplement the non-administered arbitration rules. Parties can agree to this procedure to shorten the time requirements provided for under the rules and limit certain other procedural aspects, such as disclosure and the number of arbitrators, to expedite their proceeding.
Olivier P. André making his remarks during the session.
Besides the CPR’s Fast Track Arbitration Rules, CPR also offers to users two other set of rules that provide for expedited arbitration procedures: The CPR Rules for Expedited Arbitration of Construction Disputes, and the CPR’s Global Rules for Accelerated Commercial Arbitration. In addition, CPR’s committees, which are composed of representatives from different stakeholders involved in the arbitration process, often discuss ways to improve the arbitration process in general and in specific industries.
By the end of the week’s discussion, Working Group II was able to find a consensus in many of the key aspects of expedited arbitration discussed, such as reasoned vs. unreasoned awards, monetary thresholds, and number of arbitrators for expedited arbitration.
Several questions, however, are still open to discussion for the next Working Group II session. For example, what will be the form of the group’s work? And will this international framework be applied to arbitration in general, or specific to international commercial arbitration?
The next session of the UNCITRAL Working Group II is preliminarily scheduled to take place from Sept. 30 to Oct. 4, 2019, at the United Nations in Vienna. CPR is looking forward to continuing to contribute to the efforts.
The author is CPR’s International Consultant/Legal Intern. He holds a LL.B. from Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (Brazil) and a LL.M. in International Commercial Law and Dispute Resolution from Pepperdine Law/Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution.
A plaintiffs-side law firm is embracing a recently developed path to pursuing employment disputes against companies that mandate class-action waivers.
Last month in California’s Northern District federal court, Uber and Lyft were separately faced with individual JAMS Inc./American Arbitration Association claims and petitions to compel arbitration from thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers working for each company.
The drivers claimed that the ride-share companies have misclassified them as independent contractors and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The basis for these arbitration claims arose in light of last year’s California Supreme Court case, Dynamex v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (Cal. April 30, 2018) (available at http://bit.ly/2ByKGnH), where the state’s top Court limited companies’ ability to label their workers as independent contractors. Unlike workers classified as employees, independent contractors, including Lyft and Uber drivers, are not entitled to minimum wage and other benefits promised under state and federal law.
The U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled in favor of employers in limiting employee’s ability to bring class suits, backing waivers in favor of mandatory individual arbitration, in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) (available at https://bit.ly/2rWzAE8); see also Noah Hanft, “What’s Next for Employers, Post Epic Systems?” Corporate Counsel (July 24, 2018) (available on the CPR Institute’s website at http://bit.ly/2E6ZUlB).
Another earlier Supreme Court case, Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) (available at http://bit.ly/2SP4ugk), held that a party may not be compelled to submit to class arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act unless otherwise provided for within the contract.
These decisions impose restrictions on employees’ ability to resolve workplace disputes, requiring them to arbitrate claims individually.
Yet 2019 has started off with a shift toward a more expansive view of workers’ rights which will affect—in ways yet to be determined—resolving conflicts with their employers. Last month, the Supreme Court in New Prime v. Oliveira, No. 17–340 (2019) (available at https://bit.ly/2CyEpbd) resolved a circuit split about whether the FAA Section 1 exemption applies to independent contractor agreements.
Plaintiff Oliveira brought a class action wage-and-hours claims against New Prime, an interstate trucking company. When New Prime sought to enforce its mandatory arbitration agreement under the FAA, Oliveira contended that he qualifies for the FAA Section 1 exemption, and the FAA shouldn’t apply to his case, thereby striking the mandatory arbitration clause in his independent contractor agreement.
The exemption clause states that “nothing herein” the FAA “shall apply to contracts of employment of . . . any  class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” While both parties agreed that Oliveira is considered a class of worker “engaged in interstate commerce,” the parties disagreed on whether the FAA’s “contracts of employment” included independent contractor agreements, or only to employer-employee agreements.
In the unanimous 8-0 decision by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch—new Justice Brett Kavanaugh wasn’t seated when the case was argued and didn’t participate—the Court held that “contract of employment” includes a broad reading of employee-employer relationships, including independent contractor agreements. Therefore, under FAA Sec.1, transportation workers like Oliveira may not be compelled to arbitrate.
Looking to the historical usage of the word “employment,” Gorsuch explained that when the FAA was enacted in 1925, “employment” was understood broadly to be “more or less as a synonym for ‘work.’” He also noted that both federal and state courts in the early 20th century have used the term “contract of employment” to describe work agreements involving independent contractors.
The New Prime decision could have a significant impact on the interstate transportation industry, including the outcomes of the pending Uber and Lyft disputes. Chicago-based law firm Keller Lenkner initially filed and is orchestrating both the 12,501 arbitrations claims against Uber (Abadilla v. Uber Technologies Inc.)and the 3,420 Lyft drivers arbitration claims against Lyft (Abarca v. Lyft Inc.).
When the two companies failed to fully pay the initial arbitration filing fees as promised within the companies’ arbitration agreements, Keller Lenkner enlisted Los Angeles firm Larson O’Brien LLP to help with the Uber Abadilla cases, and filed a motion to compel arbitration against both companies in the N. D. California District Court.
It is not a surprise that Uber and Lyft are delaying the fee payments. As it turns out, the large numbers of individual arbitrations are expensive and time consuming for companies. In the Uber arbitrations under JAMS, the initial filing fees for arbitration is $1,500 per dispute.
Similarly, Lyft’s American Arbitration Association arbitrations are $1,900 per dispute. A detailed list of AAA’s employment dispute arbitration fees is available at https://bit.ly/2X4VD9Q.
At the same time, Uber counters in the joint case management statement filed by both parties on Feb. 7 that the plaintiffs haven’t paid their arbitration fees either. The joint statement is available at http://bit.ly/2X10Tew.
Uber even proposed to resolve the arbitrations through four representative arbitrations. Alison Frankel, “Forced into arbitration, 12,500 drivers claim Uber won’t pay fees to launch case,” Reuters (Dec. 6, 2018) (available at https://reut.rs/2tha1xS). While Keller Lenkner rejected this offer on behalf of its clients, it is interesting and unusual that Uber proposed the equivalent of class arbitration, after fighting so hard—and successfully—against class action arbitrations at the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. O’Connor, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 14-16078 (Sept. 25, 2018) (available at http://bit.ly/2Gnhggl).
In combatting these individual arbitration claims, the ride-share companies adopted several tactics including: 1) delay the arbitrations by not paying the arbitration initial filing fees, 2) challenging their opposing counsels’ qualifications, and 3) offering incentives for employees to drop their arbitration claims.
The tactic to delay arbitration fee payments, as both Uber and Lyft seem to be doing, is not new. See Howard E. Levin, Stiffing the Arbitrators and the Respondents, ABA GPSolo eReport (Aug. 22, 2017) (available at http://bit.ly/2WZQD6c). Neither is the plaintiffs’ push for mass individual arbitrations. See Jessica Goodheart, “Why 24 Hour Fitness Is Going to the Mat against Its Own Employees,” Fast Company (March 13) (available at http://bit.ly/2pkDPIm) (A class of health club employees decertified by a California federal court filed hundreds of individual arbitrations, which the employer settled as a group); Ben Penn, “Buffalo Wild Wings Case Tests Future of Class Action Waivers,” Bloomberg Law (July 12, 2018), https://bit.ly/2Sx9qXY (Workers at Buffalo Wild Wings filed nearly 400 individual arbitrations for wage-and-hour disputes, which also resolved in a group settlement).
Uber and Lyft did not respond to a request for comment.
Since arbitrations can only proceed after the initial filing fees are paid, there is perverse incentive for companies to delay or even refuse to pay the arbitration fees, in hopes that employees would either pay for the filing fees themselves, or simply give up and abandon the claims altogether.
As noted, the companies advanced arguments to attack the qualifications of their opposing firms and attorneys. In a separate but similar wage-and-hour arbitration dispute at the California Northern District federal court, Uber succeeded in its motion to disqualify Keller Lenkner and its partner Warren Postman from representing Diva Limousine against Uber in Diva Limousine Ltd. v. Uber Technologies Inc. (case page available at http://bit.ly/2Ia1wz2).
In Diva, Uber argued that in his previous job at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Postman frequently “exchanged confidential and privileged communications [with Uber] on the driver classification issue,” and should therefore be disqualified for conflicts of interest. (A detailed account of Uber’s argument can be found at Alison Frankel, “Law firm for Uber drivers in mass arbitration is bounced from federal court case,” Reuters (Jan. 10) (available at https://reut.rs/2GntPYS).
On Jan. 11, Judge Edward M. Chen from the California Northern District federal court in San Francisco granted Uber’s motion to disqualify Postman & Keller Lenkner. On Feb. 11, 2019, the plaintiff appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit, filing a writ of mandamus.
Uber is now trying to use the Diva opinion as the basis to disqualify Keller Lenkner and Larson O’Brien in the Abadilla case. In Uber’s opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration (see motion available at http://bit.ly/2TNcnjx), the company argued that while the counsel of record for the 12,501 drivers is the Larson O’Brien firm, the arbitration demands were initially submitted to JAMS by Keller Lenkner.
Uber expressed doubts on Larson O’Brien’s involvement in the case, alleging that Keller Lenkner, with Larson O’Brien by association, should not be able to represent the drivers given the Diva disqualification judgment.
Keller Lenkner might face the same conflict problem against Lyft as well. In November, soon after Keller Lenkner requested arbitration, Lyft filed a tort lawsuit against Postman, seeking both money damages and an injunction against Postman from representing the Lyft drivers in arbitrations. (Lyft Inc. v. Postman, case court docket available at https://bit.ly/2SRO4DY). There, Lyft alleged that Postman worked closely with Lyft when he was at the Chamber of Commerce, and like Uber, alleged that he was exposed to confidential information about Lyft’s driver classification issues (see motion available at https://bit.ly/2tiNMYu).
On Jan. 16, the Court grant an extension for Postman to respond to the complaint, but Postman has yet to respond as of Feb. 14. It is unclear if the Diva opinion, now on appeal, would affect Keller Lenkner’s eligibility to represent the drivers in the Lyft arbitrations.
In addition to stalling the arbitration and imposing other defenses against the arbitrations, Uber and Lyft might also consider other ways to settle these claims. Uber already did this in the past, in offering to pay 11 cents per mile in exchange for drivers to opt out of another arbitration. After all, Uber and Lyft are both hoping to go public in the next few months, and it would be to their advantage to resolve these matters before then.
It is unknown if mass individual arbitrations—the plaintiffs’ “death by a thousand cuts” strategy—will turn out to be a key path for gig-economy workers. While mass individual arbitrations may impose pressure for companies to change their policies or to settle, would it be possible to arbitrate so many disputes?
Although it appears that Uber is stalling for time by attacking Postman’s qualifications, it is questionable whether Keller Lenkner, a 10-attorney firm, is equipped to handle more than 16,000 individual arbitrations–though, according to Keller Lenkner, they have been referring affected clients to other firms as a way to address this problem.
The plaintiffs’ mass arbitration strategy also has been questioned by experts, who wonder whether it risks corrupting the processes. They charge that attorneys employing this strategy may be trying to gain negotiation leverage, rather than intending to arbitrate each claim, which, they say, is detrimental to ADR. See Andrew Wallender, “Corporate Arbitration Tactic Backfires as Claims Flood In,” Bloomberg Law (Feb. 11) (available at https://bit.ly/2BwruqF).
Moreover, in light of New Prime, significant changes loom in how transportation workers bring their claims. For drivers in the ride-share industry who “engage in … interstate commerce,” New Prime stands for the proposition that they have a choice to bring future wage and hour claims directly to the state and federal courts, rather than through arbitrations.
Another question is whether Uber and Lyft drivers will fit under the FAA Sec. 1 umbrella of transportation workers “engaged in … interstate commerce.” Even if they are, how will the New Prime sit with individual state laws and regulations?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.