Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.

6 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Securities Litigation Update: Courts of Appeal Address the Exchange Act’s Exclusive-Jurisdiction and Non-Waiver Provisions, the Duty to Disclose, and Scienter

    Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLPJason HalperApril 14, 2022

    25 Id. at 729 (citing Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (1991)).26Id. at 730.27Id.28Id. (citing Shearson/Am. Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987)).29Id. (citing Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506 (1974)).30Id.31Id. at 732.32Boilermakers Loc. 154 Ret. Fund v. Chevron Corp., 73 A.3d 934, 954 (Del.

  2. "Key Takeaways: Back to Basics - A Primer on the Differences Between Litigating and Arbitrating International Disputes"

    Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLPJulie BédardJanuary 16, 2016

    See id., art. V; Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 520 n.15 (1974) (“The goal of the [New York] Convention, and the principal purpose underlying American adoption and implementation of it, was to encourage the recognition and enforcement of commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts and to unify the standards by which agreements to arbitrate are observed and arbitral awards are enforced in the signatory countries.”).

  3. Deciding Who Decides Questions of Arbitrability: A Survey of American Law and a Comparative Perspective

    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLPDecember 7, 2015

    Passed by Congress in 1924, the Act reversed more than a century of American common law reflecting traditional English hostility to arbitration agreements, which were considered unenforceable attempts to divest the courts of their jurisdiction. See Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 510-11 & n. 4 (1974). The Congressional report accompanying the Act explained that English courts, jealous of their jurisdiction, “refused to enforce specific agreements to arbitrate,” and that this “jealously survived for so long a period that the principle became firmly embedded in the English common law and was adopted with it by the American courts.”

  4. Revisiting the New York Convention as Burundi Becomes its 150th Signatory

    Cozen O'ConnorMartin GusyAugust 27, 2014

    The treaty requires that courts of contracting states to give effect to private agreements to arbitrate as well as recognize and enforce arbitration awards rendered in other contracting states. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Scherk v. Alberto-Culver, 417 U.S. 506, 520 n.15 (1973): The goal of the Convention, and the principal purpose underlying American adoption and implementation of it, was to encourage the recognition and enforcement of commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts and to unify the standards by which agreements to arbitrate are observed and arbitral awards are enforced in the signatory countries. (emphasis supplied) In addition, while one of its aims is to prevent signatories from discriminating against foreign and non-domestic arbitral awards, the New York Convention provides an alternative means (which is many times much more effective) to resolve international disputes.

  5. U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Forum Selection Clauses In Construction Contracts Should Be Rigorously Enforced

    Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.December 6, 2013

    Thus, any arbitration provision that requires disputes to be arbitrated in a particular state, or arbitrated under a particular state’s law, will continue to be strongly enforced by federal courts notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s analysis here. SeeScherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519 (1974); see also American Arbitration Association, Construction Industry Arbitration Rules, R-12 (“When the parties’ arbitration agreement requires a specific locale, … the locale shall be that specified in the agreement.”).Federal versus state litigation.

  6. U.S. Supreme Court May Strongly Enforce Forum Selection Clauses: Many Businesses Will Breathe a Sigh of Relief, While Smaller Contractors Might Brace for Impact

    Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.November 1, 2013

    And no matter what the Atlantic Marine court decides, contracts that require disputes to be arbitrated in a particular state, or arbitrated under a particular state’s law, will continue to be strongly enforced. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519 (1974); see also American Arbitration Association, Construction Industry Arbitration Rules, R-12 (“When the parties’ arbitration agreement requires a specific locale, … the locale shall be that specified in the agreement …. When the parties’ arbitration agreement is silent with respect to locale, … the locale shall be the city nearest to the site of the project in dispute.”). Thus, the shift—or, depending on one’s vantage point, the solidification—of the balance of interests in the construction industry potentially brought about by Atlantic Marine must be tempered by the reality that a large percentage of disputes will never make it into a courtroom in the first place.