Search results
As the Court recounts, ante, at 2–6, this case was launched as a class action in federal court charging named ocean carriers (collectively, Stolt-Nielsen) with a conspiracy to extract supracompetitive prices from their customers (buyers of ocean-transportation services). That court action terminated when the Second Circuit held, first, that ...
The Ninth Circuit ruled that Stolt-Nielsen was not controlling because the agreement in this case was ambiguous ra- ther than silent on the issue of class arbitration.
9 gru 2009 · On September 4, 2003, in the federal district court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, AnimalFeeds filed a class action lawsuit against Stolt-Nielsen, alleging that the shipping companies were violating antitrust laws by colluding to restrict competition in the shipping trade. See Stolt-Nielsen, 548 F.3d at 87.
13 gru 2010 · In Stolt-Nielsen, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the award of a distinguished arbitral tribunal essentially because the tribunal did not reach the result favored by the Supreme Court. In Stolt-Nielsen, charterers were arbitrating against shipping companies, alleging violations of antitrust law.
9 gru 2009 · Stolt-Nielsen then petitioned the Connecticut federal district court to vacate the panel's determination, which was granted. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and reinstated the panel's decision.
IACL Case Report Stolt-Nielsen SA v Animalfeeds Intl Corp - Supreme Court of the United States Case No 08-1198 - 27 April 2010 available at https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/legal-and-regulatory-detail.asp?key=27818.
15 cze 2022 · Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U. S., at 684. For that reason, state law cannot condition the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate on the availability of a procedural mechanism that would per-mit a party to expand the scope of the anticipated arbitration by intro-ducing claims that the parties did not jointly agree to arbitrate. A
