Court erred in finding parties' arbitration agreement enforceable and in granting Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The National Arbitration Forum (NAF) is no longer able to conduct arbitrations involving consumer loans. The unavailability of NAF and absence of 1999 NAF Code leave parties without their designated arbitrator and rules specifically chosen to govern arbitration. Designation of NAF as arbitral forum and term mandating use of 1999 NAF Code were integral to parties' arbitration agreement.(MOORE, concurring; SCHWARM, dissenting.)
Plaintiffs, in the business of identifying, developing and filing qui tam lawsuits, hired 2 Chicago law firms to investigate and prosecute potential claims under Illinois and federal False Claims Acts, and terminated the relationship after Defendants spent several months investigating the claims. After Plaintiffs did not pay Defendants' legal fees, Defendants demanded mediation under ADR provision of fee agreement. Federal Arbitration Act, rather than Illinois law, governed ADR provision due to the fee agreement's ties to interstate commerce. As Plaintiffs filed declaratory judgment action arguing that entire fee agreement was invalid, question of its enforceability must be decided by an arbitrator, and not a court. (NEVILLE and MASON, concurring.)
Plaintiff insurer filed subrogation action to recover payments it made to its insured. Defendant moved to compel arbitration as parties were signatories to Arbitration Forums' Arbitration Agreement. Amendment to Arbitration Agreement unambiguously provides that filing date of insured's claim, rather than event date or date of loss, determines whether claim was subject to compulsory arbitration. Judicial estoppel applies only to inconsistent factual positions, not inconsistent legal positions.(HUTCHINSON and ZENOFF, concurring.)
Dist. Ct. erred in affirming arbitrator’s award in favor of defendant-Soccer players' union in underlying dispute over whether collective bargaining agreement (CBA) required union approval of plaintiff’s proposed tequila poster advertisement that contained images of individual soccer players. Arbitrator erred in finding existence of ambiguity in CBA with respect to appropriate treatment regarding “non-Spot” advertisements, since CBA did contain union approval language for “Spot” advertisements, while it did not contain said language for instant proposed non-Spot advertisement. Accordingly, arbitrator exceeded powers delegated to him by adding language into non-Spot advertisement clause and ignoring existing language in said clause that required plaintiff only to request, but not require sponsor donation into player pool for sponsor’s use of said advertisement.
(Court opinion corrected 8/8/16.) Arbitrator determined, and court affirmed, that Defendant was required to pay Plaintiff severance pay and buy Plaintiff's stocks after his employment was terminated pursuant to the parties employment agreement. Defendants appeal arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by requiring that Defendant purchase Plaintiff's stock. Having conceded that they, along with Plaintiff, placed the question of whether they were required to purchase Plaintiff's stock before the arbitrator and having never questioned the arbitrator's authority to decide the issue, Defendants forfeited the issue of the arbitrator's authority. (ROCHFORD and HALL, concurring.)
Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act
Public Act 99-775 (Welch, D-Westchester; Connelly, R-Lisle) provides procedures and requirements for the access and control by guardians, executors, agents, and other fiduciaries of the digital assets of persons who are deceased, under a legal disability, or subject to the terms of a trust.
Dist. Ct. erred in rejecting plaintiff’s challenge to arbitration award in favor of defendant in dispute regarding whether defendant violated terms of listing agreement calling for defendant to assist plaintiff in negotiating sublease of its office space, as well as finding plaintiff substitute office space. Record showed that plaintiff was unwilling to sublease its office space and move elsewhere unless it netted $7 million during said process, and defendant responded by presenting plaintiff with series of cost-benefits analyses (CBA) with respect to proposed properties, one of which included proposed net savings to plaintiff of $6.9 million that plaintiff accepted. However, when plaintiff later discovered that defendant had failed to include $3.1 million tenant improvement allowance for sublessee in relevant CBA that resulted in plaintiff only obtaining $3.8 net savings, plaintiff sued defendant for $3.1 million plus vacatur of $4.5 million in commissions that defendant had received during relocation process. Arbitration panel found that although defendant had made material “mistake” in failing to include tenant improvement allowance in CBA, plaintiff could obtain no relief where CBA contained disclaimer with respect to any errors contained therein. Ct. of Appeals, though, found that arbitration panel exceeded its authority in issuing award in favor of defendant, since panel was limited to construing listing agreement, and thus its reliance on CBA was unjustified. (Dissent filed.)
Respondent, an Illinois general partnership, entered into a restated partnership agreement for purpose of continued development of a mobile home park. That trust, and two other trusts, and their trustees, were named as respondents in action to dissolve original partnership and appoint a receiver. Complaint alleged breaches of partnership agreement. Court erred in denying Respondents' motion to dismiss. Arbitration clause in partnership agreement was broad, providing that all disputes arising under agreement were subject to arbitration. As dissolution and liquidation provisions were in dispute, under broad arbitration clause, those issues were subject to arbitration, or at least reasonably in doubt, so that arbitrators should have determined meaning of arbitration clause.(SCHMIDT and WRIGHT, concurring.)
Union and City were unable to agree on extent to which City would continue to pay retiring Union members for their unused sick leave; parties referred issue to mandatory arbitration. Arbitrator then entered written order adopting City's final proposal. Court entered written order granting City's motion for summary judgment, upon Union petitioning for review of arbitrator's decision.Arbitrator had duty to consider interests and welfare of public and financial ability of City to meet costs, which include City's pension obligations. Section 14(h) of Illinois Public Relations Act required arbitrator to consider pension funding as part of City's broader financial landscape. Section 14(k) of Act allows an award of interest only if court has found a party's appeal frivolous; it does not allow award of interest to losing party on appeal. (KNECHT and HOLDER WHITE, concurring.)
During interest arbitration proceedings, City sought to add a provision to its agreement with firefighters union that would allow it to unilaterally change health insurance benefits that it was providing to union's members during period of agreement. A party does not act in bad faith merely by submitting to an interest arbitrator a proposal pertaining to a permissive subject of bargaining.A party is not prejudiced by submission of the issue, as its objection will preclude the arbitrator from considering it.(McLAREN and SPENCE, concurring.)
