Search

The decision provides guidance on the law governing the interpretation of a forum-selection clause under the PILA. Subject to a specific and deviating choice of law that applies to the forumselection clause, and if there is both a jurisdiction clause and a choice-of-law clause, the law that applies to the main contract also applies to the interpretation of the forum-selection clause. While this decision provides more predictability and reduces the likelihood for disputes, it is not comprehensive. The decision also confirms that the more flexible rules applying to the interpretation of arbitration agreements do not apply to forum selection clauses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the ongoing debate among lawyers regarding the use of arbitration as a method for resolving disputes between lawyers and clients. Supporters of arbitration argue that it is a faster, more cost-effective, and confidential alternative to litigation. However, critics point out that arbitration may not always be the quickest or most economical option and lacks appellate review. The article provides guidance to lawyers who wish to include arbitration clauses in their engagement agreements and enforce them against resistant clients. It also discusses the varying requirements for binding arbitration clauses and the additional obligations imposed by state ethics committees. The article examines the views of courts and ethics committees on arbitration of fee disputes, legal malpractice claims, and ethical complaints. It concludes by outlining six key considerations that lawyers must address to ensure the enforceability of their arbitration agreements. The article emphasizes the importance of providing clients with sufficient information to make informed decisions about arbitration and ensuring that the terms of the agreement are fair and reasonable. It also highlights the need for clear and straightforward language in arbitration clauses and the potential for clients to argue waiver of arbitration based on litigation conduct or unnecessary delay. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the phenomenon of mass arbitration and its limitations as a solution for employment rights issues caused by mandatory arbitration clauses. Topics include the rise of arbitration clauses, the impact of class waivers, the shortcomings of mass arbitration, and the need for collaboration among various groups to effectively address the challenges posed by the current system of private law enforcement in employment.

The article discusses the legal issues related to alleged infinite arbitration clauses in contracts in the U.S. under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Also cited are some cases like Revitch v. DIRECTV and Mey v. DIRECTV, the FAA's section 2 provision on consumer disputes that do not focus mainly on container contracts, and a brief history of arbitration and the FAA.

Resolving tax treaty disputes and improving dispute resolution mechanisms for tax treaty disputes have been important topics for international tax for decades, but it has not been an easy journey for the international tax community including policymakers, international bodies, and academics to come up with a clear solution. Similar to other global policies that require a multilateral agreement, a multilateral approach to a global tax policy cannot be easy as relations among the states with different backgrounds need to be coordinated and it involves critical issues relevant to national interests such as tax sovereignty, revenue, conflicts with domestic laws, and financial resources. That being said, the current global approach to resolve unsuccessful Mutual Agreement Procedure ("MAP") cases of a tax treaty seems fairly straightforward under both the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations' Model Tax Conventions as both simply suggest arbitration to step in to render a final decision for the unsuccessful MAP cases. However, due to the factors mentioned earlier, the vast majority of the bilateral tax treaties do not contain the arbitration clause, and it seems quite clear that an approach needs to be made from both within and outside the boundaries of international tax, tackling sub-issue by sub-issue, in order to improve dispute resolution mechanism for tax treaty disputes. This Article aims to highlight the importance of having the arbitration clause in a tax treaty, and focusing on the financial aspects of tax treaty arbitration, examines whether third-party funding ("TPF"), which has become more mainstream in traditional international arbitration proceedings, could be utilized in tax treaty arbitration to remove certain financial barriers as in other traditional arbitration proceedings by analyzing (i) any legal barriers, (ii) benefits from a justice perspective, and (iii) investment merit from a funder perspective. For the analysis, the Article specifically discusses (a) the current issues and the status quo of the MAP and tax treaty arbitration, (b) how TPF has been utilized in international arbitration and helping parties without or insufficient financial resources, (c) differences and similarities between tax treaty arbitration and other types of international arbitration i.e., international commercial arbitration, investor-state arbitration, and state-state arbitration, and (d) TPF from both the taxpayer claimant and the funder perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even though the plaintiff distributors had not executed the agreements containing the arbitration clause, the court found that the plaintiff distributors were bound by the arbitration clause because they were aware of the contracts and had accepted benefits under the contracts. Even though it was undisputed that the alleged unlawful acts were committed by the franchisee, not the franchisor, the court found disputed issues of fact as to whether the franchisor exercised sufficient control over the franchisee's employees so as to subject the franchisor to liability as an employer. While the court recognized that the franchisor had no involvement in hiring the employee, did not provide any tools or equipment to the employee, and did not pay the employee or provide him with any benefits, the court found that evidence regarding the franchisor's ability to control hiring decisions and day-to-day management of the franchise location was sufficient to preclude summary judgment. After reviewing the agreements at issue, the court found that the franchisee's failure to adhere to the development schedule or pay contractually required fees were not caused by the franchisor's acts or omissions, and awarded over six hundred thousand dollars in damages to the franchisor. [Extracted from the article]

The Libyan law allows for arbitration exclusively in administrative contracts of an international character, thus; the agreement of the parties in the arbitration clause shall implies an express departure from the exclusive jurisdiction of the judiciary; Therefore, it does not automatically extend to disputes resulting from the concluded contract; Rather than that it is a Stipulation agreed upon between the contracting parties and the validity of this Stipulation is subject to specific written consent in accordance with the provisions of Libyan legislation; Although it did not obligate its parties to use specific words; However, this agreement shall result from a verb of the required form, This is stipulated in Paragraph (B) of Article 83 of the Administrative Contracts Regulations issued by Cabinet Resolution (formerly the General People's Committee) No. 653 of 2007; Because derogation from the administrative judge's jurisdiction is considered a violation of the rules for protecting obligations contained in the administrative contract. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article reports the first ever empirical study of how Chinese-owned businesses in the United States utilize contract clauses to choose dispute processes. As a large and recent source for foreign direct investment in the United States, China presents an interesting case study of whether foreign owned businesses replicate American dispute resolution process choices (e.g., whether contracts include arbitration clauses or not) when disputes arise within the United States. This study also offers a window into the continuing scholarly and practical questions of whether American courts (or other arenas) are considered "biased" against foreign litigants. Using data from a comprehensive survey of Chinese firms operating in the United States, we explore a number of factors, such as state ownership, business sector type, and size of U.S. investment, that might influence whether Chinese-owned companies prefer arbitration or litigation in disputes arising in the United States. We find several factors to be correlated with the presence of arbitration clauses in Chinese business contracts: sensitivity to costs and fees, access to corporate internal legal advice, views about judicial fairness, and preference for U.S. lawyers with Chinese backgrounds. While filling important knowledge gaps, this study also raises several novel questions for further consideration: whether there are changes in contract terms and dispute process choices post recent trade issues in China-US relations, the extent to which Chinese-owned businesses are either sui generis or similar to other foreign businesses in the United States, and, as will be reviewed in this article, whether changing dispute process choices within China are influencing choices Chinese businesses make when they operate abroad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to analyze, within the franchise system, a possible collision between the principle of protection of the dependent contractor and the principle of binding contracts. The reason for the debate is the recent decisions of the STJ, which recognize the nullity of jurisdiction and arbitration clauses in franchise contracts for having been improperly inserted in adhesion contracts between parties that would be in asymmetrical positions. Thus, through the deductive method, we seek to analyze the current interpretation of the STJ and the principles that govern franchise agreements and verify if there is, in fact, a collision of principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the economy makes inroads into the digital industry, consumer rights are restricted and the interest of companies to innovate is limited. This raises questions regarding the validity, effects and practicality of arbitration clauses contained in the terms and conditions of digital platforms, applications, and online services. Unnoticed, questionable practices have been introduced in the drafting of these clauses, further limiting social rights that not always find support on judicial precedents. This article begins by establishing a doctrinal approach on the application of such clauses, given the academic and doctrinal inactivity on these matters in the digital sector. Based on this, it analyzes arbitration clauses in digital platforms that in recent years have been subject to investigations for anti-competitive practices. Through this analysis, a mechanism is proposed for the study of claims arising from the relationship between digital companies and consumers, as well as the use of objective terms to solve the legal problems that will inevitably result from the interaction between digital economy, consumer rights and economic competition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following two recent decisions from the apex courts in England and Singapore on the appropriate methodology to ascertain the proper law of an arbitration agreement, the positions in these two leading arbitration destinations have now converged in some respects. But other issues of conceptual and practical significance have not been fully addressed, including the extent to which the true nature of the inquiry into whether the parties had made a choice of law is in substance an exercise in contractual interpretation, the applicability of a validation principle, and the extent to which the choice of a neutral seat may affect the court's determination of the proper law of the arbitration agreement. We propose a re-formulation of the common law's traditional three-stage test for determining the proper law of an arbitration agreement that can be applied by courts and tribunals alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on history of the Federal Arbitration Act, specifically as it relates to mandatory arbitration in employment contracts. It mentions clauses are problematic and focuses on the effects they have on low-wage workers and states can significantly curtail negative effects associated with mandatory pre-dispute arbitration. It also mentions mandatory arbitration clauses, state legislatures can look to basic contract principles and approach to contract formation.

The article discusses the California Supreme Court case White v. Square, Inc. for a putative class action under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act) against online service providers without entering into an agreement. Topics discussed include legislatures of expanding consumer remedies, pervasive arbitration clauses in businesses' adhesion contracts and the business's discriminatory policy.

This study seeks to evaluate whether a decade of tort reform and Seventh Amendment attacks have eroded corporate confidence sufficiently to prompt a substantial increase in the use of jury waiver and arbitration clauses. In 2006, Eisenberg, et. al examined jury trial waivers in a data set of 2,816 contracts contained as exhibits in Form 8-K filings with the SEC. Those authors found that only about 20% of such contracts contained express waivers of the right to trial by jury, with another 9% implicitly waiving the right by agreeing contractually to arbitrate disputes. In the decade since the study concluded, tort reform advocates have devoted substantial time and resources undermining confidence in the jury trial system. During that same period, mandatory arbitration legislation similarly worked to supplant jury trials. Replicating Miller and Eisenberg's methodology, this study seeks to evaluate the effects of these Seventh Amendment attacks by examining the prevalence of jury waiver and arbitration clauses since the prior study concluded. This study, like its predecessor, studies contracts attached as exhibits to Form 8-K filings. As these are associated with events deemed material to the financial condition of SEC-reporting firms, these contracts were likely carefully negotiated by sophisticated, wellinformed parties. As well, the documents' materiality suggests that they received sufficient scrutiny and attention to be considered inten-tional in every aspect. Such critical documents provide presumptive evidence about the perceived value of the right to trial by jury. By increasing the data set significantly (from 2,816 contracts to 4,011) and focusing on the same type of contracts as examined by the prior study ten years before, this study enables new conclusions to be drawn about the prevalence of express and implied waivers to the right of trial by jury. The results of this study both confirm and conform to the findings of the prior study (with a few notable exceptions deserving of analysis) and notes new trends which question the permanence and persistence of the hypotheses respectively confirmed and denied by the prior study. As the results indicate, despite the increased number of contracts filed, it remained that a minority included an explicit jury waiver (less than 30% as compared to about 20% previously). In 2002, about 9% of the contracts required arbitration or an implied jury waiver; in this study that number had grown to only 13%, despite state and federal legislation and case law favoring arbitration. To better understand the issue, this study explored the two factors which appear mostly likely to determine the prevalence of jury waiver or arbitration clauses in studied contracts: (1) the type of contract; and (2) the degree of standardization of that contract. For example, nearly 50% of securities purchase contracts contain explicit jury waivers as compared to only 12.5% of settlement agreements. Results revealed increased standardization in the contracts was strongly associated with use of explicit jury waivers. Ultimately, this study reinforces the conclusions of the prior study: despite widespread media coverage and lay perception that juries are not competent to decide complex business disputes, sophisticated corporate actors perceive that juries add value to dispute resolution even in complex commercial settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Commentators have long tried to sound the alarm about boilerplate contracts, pointing out threats ranging from the loss of privacy rights to the erosion of public law and democratic self-governance. This Article argues that this list of concerns misses something important: that imposing certain boilerplate terms on individuals is incompatible with their dignity. After explaining and defending the conception of dignity presupposed here, this Article shows how boilerplate accountability waivers--like arbitration clauses--prevent people from accessing the distinctive dignity-vindicating role of courts and degrade their status as legal persons. And because governments may legitimately protect dignity interests, proposed reforms like the Arbitration Fairness Act have an even stronger justification than previously recognized. Boilerplate indignity should, in any event, force us to take a hard look at the dignity interests jeopardized by fine print, interests routinely sacrificed at the altar of commercial expediency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses updates on appellate advocacy-related decisions issued by U.S. federal and state courts. Topics explored include the opinion offered by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch on arbitration clauses involved in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis, the state tax collection from out-of-state and online retailers in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., and the acknowledgment of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund.

The article discusses the impact of mandatory arbitration on justice and employment law in the U.S. as of 2019, and it mentions the #MeToo social movement, sexual harassment laws, and a call for legislative reform in America. The use of arbitration clauses by employers is examined, along with the U.S. Congress, judicial interpretations, and legal protections from discrimination under Title VII of America's Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Kindred Nursing Centers LP v. Clark et al. which emphasizes the enforceability of arbitration agreements in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act. Topics discussed include the disapproval by the Court of the decision held by the Kentucky Supreme Court in the Kindred case, and the decisions held by the Court in the cases AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion and Marmet Health Care Center Inc. v. Brown.

International transactions present unique legal risks. When a contract touches several different nations, a party may not know where it will be called upon to defend a lawsuit or, alternatively, which nation's law will be applied to resolve that dispute. To mitigate these risks, parties will often write dispute resolution provisions into their contracts. Arbitration clauses and forum selection clauses help to reduce uncertainty relating to the forum. Choice-of-law clauses help to reduce uncertainty as to the governing law. Over the past few decades, such provisions have become commonplace in international contracting. And yet there exist vanishingly few empirical studies exploring the use of these provisions in international commercial agreements. This Article aspires to fill this gap. Drawing upon a handcollected dataset of 157 international supply agreements, it describes the ways in which large corporations seek to mitigate their risk in international transactions via dispute resolution clauses. The Article first provides a thorough descriptive account of choice-of-law clauses in these agreements to illustrate the myriad ways these clauses do and do not mitigate legal risk. It then undertakes the same project with respect to arbitration clauses and forum selection clauses, paying careful attention to the ways in which actual practice deviates from the model forms promulgated by arbitration groups, to show how these clauses mitigate forum risk. While the primary objective of the Article is descriptive rather than normative--it seeks to describe the contents of agreements that have heretofore been largely ignored by legal scholars--it also discusses the normative implications of its descriptive account for three groups. First, legal scholars may draw upon this account to better understand how contract boilerplate evolves and changes over time. Second, judges called upon to interpret a contract may utilize this account to determine whether a phrase is typically included in clauses of a given type. Third, and finally, contract drafters may glean useful insights into how to craft dispute resolution provisions that maximize the reduction in uncertainty in international contracting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

El artículo presenta un informe sobre el procedimiento legal para el arbitraje y la mediación en España en 2019. Los temas discutidos incluyen, la sentencia del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, España; el número de pedido (n) 43/2019 de la Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona el 7 de febrero de 2019; y la Orden N16/2019 de la Audiencia Provincial de Madrid, España, el 1 de febrero de 2019.

As demonstrated by the #MeToo movement, current attempts to curtail systemic sexual violence in the workplace have fallen flat: approximately sixty million US workers are subject to mandatory arbitration clauses, which employers tend to bury deep within the fine print of employment contracts. These clauses, often coupled with confidentiality agreements, have provided offenders--and their employers--with a mechanism to escape liability and public scrutiny. Under the existing judicial framework, whether a court will allow victims of workplace sexual violence to escape binding arbitration remains unclear. Congress attempted to address this uncertainty by proposing the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act of 2017. Though well intentioned, Congress failed to properly tailor the bill to all forms of sexual violence in the workplace. This Note argues that employees should never be compelled to arbitrate claims of sexual violence, but rather should be afforded the choice to either arbitrate or instead resolve the matter in court. Moreover, this Note advocates for an amendment to the proposed bill--replacing the term "sex discrimination dispute" with "sexual violence dispute"--to explicitly prohibit employers from mandating binding arbitration of any claims of sexual assault, misconduct, or harassment. Through this modification, Congress can empower victims to share their stories if, when, and where they so choose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: Republican Party; politics; industry; free market; elections; corporations; climate change EN Republican Party politics industry free market elections corporations climate change 99 101 3 02/20/21 20210101 NES 210101 On January 30, 2017, Donald Trump marked the first fortnight of his presidency by gloating to an audience of reporters and business leaders gathered in the Oval Office that "the American Dream is back!" B I ... [I]n no areas of federal regulatory policy were Trump's cuts deeper or more repeated, his rule-reversals more significant, than in those pertaining to carbon-intensive industries. i b But in no areas of federal regulatory policy were Trump's cuts deeper or more repeated, his rule-reversals more significant, than in those pertaining to carbon-intensive industries. In no other economic sector did Trump enjoy an even remotely comparable fundraising advantage - not even in industries where Trump has his own personal business stakes, like lodging and tourism, casinos, or real estate. [Extracted from the article]

The rise of arbitration has been one of the most significant developments in civil justice. Many scholars have criticized arbitration for, among other things, "privatizing" or "delegating" the state's disputeresolution powers and allowing private parties to abuse those powers with virtual impunity. An implicit assumption underlying this critique is that civil procedure, in contrast to arbitration, does not delegate significant state power to private parties. This Article challenges that assumption and argues that we can address many of the concerns about arbitration by drawing on civil procedure's solutions to its own delegation problem. From summonses to subpoenas to settlements, civil procedure pervasively delegates state power during ordinary civil litigation. With these delegations comes the potential for abuse. But rather than limit private parties' access to delegated power before any abuse has occurred, civil procedure generally polices its delegations for abuse after the fact. It does so in three main ways: by rescinding delegated power, as in the appointment of discovery masters; by withholding enforcement from an exercise of delegated power, as in civil Batson; and by punishing abuse of delegated power, as in Rule 11 sanctions. Civil procedure's delegation-policing doctrines allow the state not only to protect private parties from harm but also to avoid becoming complicit in private exercises of delegated power that offend important public values. Arbitration's delegations of state power present many of the same problems as civil procedure's, and scholars have rightly criticized the current arbitration regime for essentially writing a blank check to private parties. But whereas most scholars have focused on restricting access to arbitration's delegations by deeming broad categories of arbitration clauses unenforceable, this Article suggests adapting civil procedure's delegation-policing doctrines for arbitration. Even if courts continue to enforce arbitran clauses more often than arbitration's critics would prefer, they should police arbitration's delegations more closely than the law now permits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on rights of employees for the substantive right under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to bring claims collectively in the face of mandatory arbitration. It mentions Courts have consistently invoked the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) as a strong policy presumption in favor of arbitration and way to challenge class action waivers. It also mentions arbitration clauses forcing employees to bring forth bilateral arbitration suits.

The 1958 New York Convention is indeed one of the most important instruments in international arbitration, contemplating not only the enforcement of arbitral awards, but also the enforcement of arbitration agreements under Article II (3). One of the perceived shortcomings of the Convention is the fact that it does not define which types of arbitration agreements can be enforced under it. The article takes into account some national legislations and judicial interpretations on the matter and contemplates the ways of interpreting the Convention so as to fill this gap. In this regard, Article II (3) is interpreted in conformity with Article I, which defines the Convention's scope of application based on the seat of arbitration. Moreover, this article discusses briefly a recent attempt to address the aforementioned shortcoming through the introduction of a hypothetical draft convention which would modernize the New York Convention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) has nearly eliminated consumer and employment class actions, sparking vigorous debate. But another important development in federal arbitration law has flown largely under the radar. Traditionally, judges granted motions to compel arbitration only after confirming that the parties had formed a valid agreement to arbitrate that applied to the underlying lawsuit. But now, through the use of "delegation clauses," businesses are giving arbitrators the exclusive power to decide these issues. Increasingly, critical questions about the arbitration--including whether the process is fair--are being resolved in the arbitration itself. This Article gives this trend the attention it deserves. It demonstrates that courts once regarded agreements to arbitrate about arbitration with greater skepticism than agreements to arbitrate the merits of a case. However, in 2010, the Supreme Court seemed to cast doubt on this distinction in Rent-A-Center West, Inc. v. Jackson by opining that delegation clauses are their own freestanding arbitration clauses: (1) agreements to arbitrate disputes (2) over the broader agreement to arbitrate the underlying complaint. Seen this way, delegation clauses are entitled to the same extraordinary deference enjoyed by conventional arbitration provisions. This Article challenges that account of delegation clauses. Drawing on the FAA's text and history and reading Rent-A-Center carefully, it argues that agreements to arbitrate the scope or enforceability of an arbitration clause should not enjoy the same exalted status as agreements to arbitrate substantive claims. Instead, delegation clauses should be understood as watered-down arbitration clauses that are more amenable to regulation than industrial-strength agreements to arbitrate a cause of action. Finally, this Article explains how its thesis would help resolve many of the questions about arbitral power that are currently dividing courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article examines the likelihood of the emergence of an alternative center for investment arbitration--a very much debated, if not favored, option in some policy circles. We argue that given the current market dominance of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID"), the emergence of institutional competition from other regions of the world is constrained by network effects. Network effects arise when the value that consumers derive from a good increases as others also use the good. (Language is the classic example.) As more users adopt the good and its utility is enhanced, additional consumers flock to the good, creating positive feedback. When a market has settled upon a single standard, the market is said to have "tipped." This gives rise to a monopoly-type situation that prevents potential rivals from successfully challenging the market dominance of the prevailing standard, creating what is known as "institutional lock-in.". After explaining the concept of institutional lock-in, we explore its salience in the investment arbitration realm. We find that this model is robust and its impact discernible in the current investment arbitration environment. Notwithstanding this finding, certain exogenous events could substantially reduce or even annihilate this effect. To this end, potential "disruptive events"--such as the European Union's push for an investment "court," potential competition from the Permanent Court of Arbitration ("PCA") or other arbitration centers, and unforeseen legislative changes--are explored. These events could undermine the market dominance of ICSID and trigger either a large-scale coalescence around an alternative institution or, rather more likely, the parceling out of investment arbitration among multiple competitors until the market again coalesces around a new standard. However, we conclude that in the absence of a strong exogenous shock, the institutional lock-in of ICSID will be difficult to dislodge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whether class action is available in an arbitration proceeding is a highly controversial topic with implications for all parties bound by such clauses. Due to the high stakes of class action arbitrability, it is essential that a neutral decisionmaker determine this question. Whether this decisionmaker is the court or the arbitrator, however, is contested and unresolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although undetermined by our highest court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has addressed this question. In Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Scout Petroleum, LLC, the Third Circuit affirmed that the availability of class arbitration is a question for the courts, unless there is clear and unmistakable language within the arbitration clause delegating such a power to the arbitrators. Further, the court held that an incorporation of the American Arbitration Association rules is not a clear and unmistakable delegation. Although this opinion incentivizes contract clarity, it also ignores the uneven bargaining power and divergent interests between parties in modern mandatory arbitration agreements, handing a windfall victory for corporations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a 2013 article, I explained that the Supreme Court and federal circuits had cut back significantly on plaintiff's ability to bring class actions. As I explain in this article, that trend has subsided. First, the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in several high-profile cases. Second, the Court's most recent class action rulings have been narrow and fact specific. Third, the federal circuits have generally rejected defendant's broad interpretations of Supreme Court precedents and arguments for further restrictions on class certification. One explanation for this new trend is that defendants have been overly aggressive in their arguments, losing credibility and causing courts to push back. Another is that courts are retreating from the view that pressure on defendants to settle is itself a reason to curtail class actions. It remains to be seen, however, whether this trend is the new normal, or merely a respite from the decline of class actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]