In the final arbitration-centric decision of the Term, the Supreme Court on April 24 held 5-4 in Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
A sharply divided California Supreme Court holds that the question of whether an arbitration agreement allows class-wide arbitration should be decided by the arbitrators,
By George H. Friedman*
For most of my fourteen years as FINRA’s Director of Arbitration, I perceived myself to be tilting at windmills trying to make the case that FINRA’s arbitration program was the fairest consumer arbitration program is existence.
We covered previously McGill v. Citibank, NA, 232 Ca4th 753 (Dec. 18, 2014), where the California Court of Appeal ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts application of the state’s “Broughton-Cruz Rule,” holding that arbitration provisions are unenforceable as against public policy if they require arbitration of injunctive relief claims brought for the public’s benefit under certain state consumer protection laws (see SAA 2015-01).