Author: CPR Staff

CPR Appoints New Cyber Panel Ahead of Anticipated Increase in Data Security Disputes

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

By Kate Wilford, Hogan Lovells (London)

The International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution, a New York-based organisation offering Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services, has recently announced the launch of a new specialised panel of neutrals, commissioned to deal with cybersecurity disputes. The Cyber Panel is composed of experts in cyber-related areas such as data breaches and subsequent insurance claims. In a press release, Noah Hanft, President of CPR, described the new panel as guiding the “critical effort” by businesses to “prevent and/or resolve cyber-related disputes in a manner that best protects operations, customers and reputation” due to attacks now occurring with increased frequency and sophistication.

CPR’s decision to establish a specialist cyber panel addresses a perceived need for arbitrators and mediators with relevant expertise, given that data protection and security breaches are regarded as an increasingly common cause of technology, media, and telecommunications (TMT) disputes, and therefore a significant growth area for commercial dispute resolution. According to the 2016 International Dispute Resolution survey on TMT disputes conducted by the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London, respondents predicted a 191% increase in disputes related to data/system security breaches, the largest growth area identified by the survey.  Despite the fact that only 9% of respondents had encountered such disputes over the last five years, 79% of respondents thought that they were either likely or very likely to arise over the next five years. The survey also suggested that data breaches are most often caused by employee action, followed by malicious third party attacks, with both being more common than breaches caused by system failures.

Given the significant reputational and financial damage that can result from a data security breach, it is crucial to resolve subsequent disputes through the use of a reliable procedure which is tailored to the wider commercial context. This is why TMT companies are increasingly often turning to international arbitration which, as the survey shows, was respondents’ preferred mechanism for resolving disputes in the sector. Compared to the 43% of respondents who expressed a preference for arbitration, only 15% chose court litigation as their most favoured option. However, at present, litigation remains the most used mechanism in practice, used in relation to 44% of TMT disputes over the last five years. In that regard, the authors of the survey add that many of these disputes arise from contracts which were concluded long before arbitration grew in popularity and consequently, they do not include an arbitration clause. If this is true, we are likely to witness a significant increase in the number of TMT arbitrations. Indeed, 82% of respondents believed that there was likely to be a general increase in TMT arbitrations.

In general, the survey suggests that TMT companies may require more confidence in international arbitration in order to make this theoretical preference a reality. One way in which this could be addressed is by increasing the number of arbitrators with specialist knowledge of the sector and the specific issues in dispute. This approach appears to correspond with the views of the respondents to the Queen Mary University of London survey, which identified the technical expertise of the decision maker as an important aspect when deciding on a dispute resolution mechanism, as well as decision makers. In light of this conclusion, it was a logical step for CPR, which already has a series of specialist panels in other areas, to appoint a specialised Cyber Panel which may appeal to parties faced with disputes relating from data security breaches. More generally, there seems to be a wide consensus that cybersecurity-related arbitration is going to be an area of future growth.

Kate Wilford is a Senior Associate in Hogan Lovells’ London office. She represents international companies in large-scale, international commercial disputes. Her practice focuses on international arbitration (most frequently under the ICC, LCIA and UNCITRAL rules) and associated court litigation, including challenges to and enforcement of arbitral awards. Ms. Wilford’s full bio can be accessed HERE.

This post was originally published at http://www.hldataprotection.com/2017/08/articles/cybersecurity-data-breaches/cpr-appoints-new-cyber-panel-ahead-of-anticipated-increase-in-data-security-disputes – the Hogan Lovells Chronicle of Data Protection blog. It was also republished on the firm’s international arbitration blog, ARBlog and is republished here with permission.

EU Court Backs Mandatory Mediation Referral

/ CPR Staff / 1 Comment

By Ugonna Kanu

The Court of Justice of the European Union, which rules on cases between members of the European Union often involving treaties, issued a significant opinion on compulsory consumer ADR earlier this year.

Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, who prepared the ruling, supported an Italian national law that compels consumers to mediate as a precondition for bringing legal proceedings in the Italian courts.

At the same time, the opinion suggests that parties may determine their own fate without a lawyer, overruling an Italian law requiring that a litigant use an attorney to mediate their case.

The EU Court of Justice opinion was based on a request for a preliminary ruling from the District Court in Verona, Italy.  Menini v. Banco Popolare – Società Cooperativa, Case C-75/16 (February 16, 2017)(Available at http://bit.ly/2usImgu).

In the case, a dispute arose between a bank and two clients concerning the performance of a mortgage contract. The bank obtained a court order against the consumers to pay the required sum.

The consumers appealed the order to the Verona district court and sought to have its provisional enforcement suspended.  The district court found that the parties making the appeal must, in order for the appeal to be admissible, use a mediation procedure in accordance with the national law.

But questions arose whether the national law that forces consumers to mediate as a pre-condition to judicial proceedings; mandates legal representation of consumers in a mediation, or penalizes a party from withdrawing from a mediation without valid reason, was incompatible with the EU consumer ADR directives.

The District Court decided to stay its proceedings and to refer the questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

The EU court mostly backed the mediation requirements.

According to the 2013 EU directives, the opinion noted, consumer ADR mechanisms are voluntary.  But they do not preclude “any national rules making the participation of [parties] in such procedures mandatory or subject to incentives or sanctions or making their outcome binding on parties, provided that such legislation does not prevent the parties from exercising their right of access to the judicial system.” Recital No. 49, Directive 2013/11/EU  of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC)(available at http://bit.ly/2jv7LjA).

Accordingly, Advocate General Saugmandsgaard, in his ruling, held on one hand, that the Italian law was compatible with the EU directives to the extent it does not deny the consumers access to the judiciary and that the limitation period does not expire during such mediation process.

On the other hand, however, the ruling precludes national legislation which mandates consumers to be assisted by lawyers, or penalizes consumers who withdraw from the mediation process without valid grounds (unless the concept of “valid grounds” includes the party simply being dissatisfied with the ADR procedure).

The author is an attorney in Nigeria who has just completed her L.L.M. in Dispute Resolution at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law.  She is a CPR Institute 2017 summer intern.

Insurer Appeals Evident Partiality Finding That Overturns Arbitration Award

/ CPR Staff / 1 Comment

By Ugonna Kanu

A New York federal court has overturned an arbitration award brought against Lloyd’s of London underwriters on the ground of evident partiality of one of the tribunal members who failed to disclose his relationship with the respondent, Florida-based Insurance Company of Americas.

ICA has filed an appeal from a decision vacating the award in favor of Lloyd’s to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. ICA claimed that New York U.S. District Court Judge Vernon S. Broderick confused the need for its party arbitrator’s “disinterestedness” with the need to be impartial.

ICA filed its brief July 20.

Broderick’s decision in Certain Underwriting Members at Lloyd’s of London v. Ins. Co. of the Americas, Case No: 1:16-cv-00323 (March 31)(available at http://bit.ly/2uIGkqY), was based on the evidence that the party-appointed arbitrator failed to disclose his relationship with the party that appointed him even after several opportunities were provided for such disclosure.

Broderick found that the “undisclosed relationships are significant enough to demonstrate evident partiality,” and vacated the award requiring Lloyd’s-represented reinsurance contracts to pay excess claims on two injury cases insured by ICA.

ICA argued that that “the only arbitrator qualification” for its tribunal pick “is that he be disinterested, which . . . means solely [a lack of] financial or other personal stake in the outcome.”

ICA also contended that other circuit courts “have found that evident partiality standards either do not apply or are even more relaxed in the case of party appointed arbitrators in tripartite industry arbitrations.”

District Court Judge Broderick adopted the evident partiality test set out in Three S Del., Inc. v. DataQuick Info. Sys., Inc., 492 F.3d 520, 530 (4th Cir. 2007(available at http://bit.ly/2vasPRv), to determine this case. The test includes four factors: the extent of the arbitrator’s personal interest in the proceedings; how direct the arbitrator’s relationship is with the party he was alleged to favor; the connection of the relationship to the arbitrator; “and the proximity in time between the relationship and the arbitration proceeding.”

In the case, the arbitrator and the ICA not only share the same building, but also the same suite. ICA’s treasurer and secretary, also a director of the company, is additionally the chief financial officer of the arbitrator’s company. The arbitrator had a business connection between the ICA president and others whose names were repeatedly mentioned during the arbitration, providing the arbitrator an ample opportunity to disclose, which he didn’t.

Finally, when the arbitrator was expressly asked of his business relationship with ICA, he said he had none.

Applying these factors, the federal district court held that the non-disclosure demonstrates evident partiality and is sufficient ground to vacate the award, which the court viewed a nondomestic award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, better known as the New York Convention.

The reasoning, according to the opinion, was that, considering the relationship between the arbitrator and ICA, “a reasonable person would have to conclude that [the] arbitrator who failed to disclose under such circumstances was partial to one side.”  Applied Indus. Materials Corp. v. Ovalar Makine Ticaret Ve Sanayi, A.S., 492 F.3d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 2007).

The opinion, however, noted that Lucent Techs. Inc v. Tatung Co., 379 F.3d 24, 28, 30 (2d Cir. 2004) held that the court didn’t “establish a per se rule requiring vacatur of an award whenever an undisclosed relationship is discovered.”

The appeal was filed on April 20. In its July brief asking the Second Circuit to reinstate the award, ICA returns to the distinction between disinterestedness and neutrality.

“The only neutrality requirement was disinterestedness—the lack of personal or financial stake in the outcome,” the brief noted, adding: “But the district court did not vacate the award on the ground that the party-appointed arbitrator failed to disclose matters that would require a reasonable person to conclude that the arbitrator had a financial or personal interest in the outcome. It vacated based on relationships that were irrelevant to the disinterestedness requirement.”

The ICA brief asking the Second Circuit to consider the case emphasized that “there is no evidence that the arbitrator had a personal or financial interest in the outcome.”

The author is an attorney in Nigeria who has just completed her L.L.M. in Dispute Resolution at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law.  She is a CPR Institute 2017 summer intern.

 

Litigation vs ADR – Different Strokes for Different Folks

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

steven_125By Judge Steven Platt

My last column described the cultural, economic and structural changes in the legal and business communities that have transposed “Alternative Dispute Resolution” (ADR) from a “cross-practice” which litigators engage in when they are contractually required or court-ordered to do so to a fully-integrated but increasingly separate and distinct set of dispute resolution services to be offered by law firms or other private “Dispute Resolution Firms”, “Groups”, and “Individual Professionals”. As I pointed out in that column the Judiciary has also, albeit belatedly, in the last 25 years recognized this primarily economic, but also legal and political reality and begun to provide or at least encourage individual and corporate litigants to seek cost effective and time sensitive alternatives to full-blown litigation.

That trend is now firmly in place and developing to the point where even some courts, specifically the Chancery Court in Delaware, have begun to formally offer other dispute resolution services as alternatives to their traditional inventory of services. Until recently courts restricted the services they offered to litigation and “settlement conferencing.” The Delaware Chancery Court has expanded this to institutionalize arbitration, evaluative mediation and neutral case evaluation services by the “Sitting Chancellors.”

This has produced a further change to the structure, operations, and culture of mid-size to large law firms albeit slowly because of entrenched resistance based on law office economics and egos. Until recently for example under the prevailing law firm business models and processes, transactions belonged to the “Corporate Department”, wills and trusts to “Trusts & Estates (T&E)” and Bankruptcy to their own discrete practice areas or Boutique Law Firms. Within these typical structures “disputes” have been the exclusive domain of the litigators.

It should not therefore be surprising to encounter resistance to this change by litigators who have historically settled most of their cases (98%) without help from a third-party neutral either privately retained or court-imposed. Many litigators on their own have adapted to the changing client expectations for a faster and less expensive resolution of their disputes by engaging in more extensive and intense settlement negotiations as a part of the litigation process or as Robert Marguilies, a business litigator in New Jersey calls it – “Litigoatiation.”

This resistance and the reason for it however are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and processes of Alternative Dispute Resolution. What those who resist the expansion of the techniques utilized to resolve disputes beyond the traditional litigation process even when it includes a large element of “litigotiation” do not comprehend is that the use of these alternative dispute resolution techniques is not just to settle the specific dispute before them but to resolve latent client goals and concerns which have led to their dispute. These other concerns almost always include addressing the underlying causes of the dispute as a means of preventing future conflict between the parties or even with third parties.

This is not always the case as for example where the dispute is purely over money such as in negligence cases resulting from automobile accidents, etc. But even in cases where professional liability issues are to be resolved, there are clearly other issues and interests to be addressed besides purely dollars and the merits and value of the claims and defenses. These can include reaching a resolution that does not engender future litigation or conflict between the policy holder and the carrier, as well as future underwriting issues between the policy-holder and the carrier. There can also be issues and interests related to professional discipline and registration involved.

The resolution of these issues are not easily achieved by the standard “position-based” settlement negotiations by lawyers that typically occur at various stages of a case which is being litigated. Furthermore it is clear to anyone who has engaged in both that settlement discussions between litigators with multiple and alternating agendas are of a different nature and quality than those led by a qualified neutral ADR professional committed to only finding an amicable comprehensive resolution to the dispute and the underlying cause of it. The former is most often intermittent, limited, unconcentrated (mixed in with litigation issues) and unfocused on a comprehensive resolution. The later is structured, concentrated and focused solely on a comprehensive settlement of all issues including those which caused the dispute to occur in the first place.

Litigators who are not trained as Mediators are also likely to confine their position-based negotiations to remedies available through the court in which the litigation is filed. This arbitrarily restricts the ability of the parties to satisfactorily and comprehensively resolve their dispute in a way that addresses the underlying issues which produces the conflict as well as eliminate the conditions which might create future controversies.

Finally, particularly in Maryland, position- based negotiations directly between lawyers acting as advocates for their clients are of necessity constrained by case law from The Court of Appeals. This case law in effect makes the issue of whether an attorney for a party who recommended a settlement based on what an “expert” now says was “insufficient information” as a result of inadequate or incomplete discovery a “jury question.” This exposes lawyers to professional liability if there is not universal acceptance that he/she complied with the standard of care within the “Expert Witness Community” whose ads can be found in many legal magazines. This exposure as a practical matter can be limited if not eliminated by skillful drafting of retainer agreements and/or settlement agreements. But if it is not, then the attorney in order to insulate himself or herself from a future adverse finding by a jury (not made up of other lawyers) will instinctively refuse or at least delay engaging in settlement discussions which may also be limited for these same reasons. This will have the effect of adding both unnecessary time and expense to the conduct of the case before even discussing settlement.

Which dispute resolution technique should the parties utilize in the Multi-Door Courthouse or Conference Room of the future? Stay tuned to this same newspaper and column for the answers to that question next month.

This post is reprinted with permission from “A Pursuit of Justice,” a blog by Judge Steven I. Platt (Ret.) that focuses on the intersection of law, economics, politics and the development of public policy.  Judge Platt currently owns and operates his own private Alternative Dispute Resolution Company, The Platt Group, Inc. through which several retired judges and experienced practitioners offer mediation, arbitration and neutral case evaluation services to business, governmental agencies and their lawyers mostly in complex litigation and disputes.  Judge Platt’s experience and vocation make him an expert in conflict resolution particularly in complex disputes whether they are political, economic, legal, or as most often the case all of the above. Judge Platt can be reached at info@apursuitofjustice.com or via his website at www.theplattgroup.com.

House Passes Resolution to Override CFPB Mandatory Arbitration Rule

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

On July 25, and by a vote of 231-190, the U.S. House of Representatives relied upon the authority provided by the Congressional Review Act to pass a “resolution of disapproval” (H.J. Res. 111) to revoke the CFPB final arbitration rule published on July 19, 2017. The White House also issued a statement of support for the resolution.

The CRA requires both the House and Senate to pass a resolution of disapproval within 60 legislative days; the Senate vote on a similar resolution is expected to take place in September.

For a summary of the Democratic response to the House’s action, see Ballard Spahr’s Consumer Finance Monitor, “House Financial Services Committee Democratic Staff Report on CFPB Assails Republicans, Defends CFPB and Arbitration Rule,” by Barbara S. Mishkin.

For a review of how these issues have unfolded, see also CPR Speaks’ earlier posts on the CFPB Rule, “CFPB Announces Final Rule Barring Mandatory Arbitration in Consumer Financial Contracts” and “Congress Responds Rapidly to Block CFPB Rule Banning Mandatory Arbitration Clauses.”

Membership Minute: A New “CPR Speaks” Feature

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

This posting is the first of what will be an ongoing series written by Niki Borofsky, Vice President of Membership, focusing on CPR Members and ways to make the most of CPR Member Benefits.

CPR’s Value Proposition: Meaningful Connections Are the Heart of Membership

As a relative newbie to CPR, I am still getting to know our members. But after six months of calls and emails, conferences and coffees, I am compelled to share a few key observations.

membership 1CPR members are, to a person: smart, creative, powerful, engaged, connected and caring.

It logically follows that the greatest advantage of participating in the CPR community – especially as a fully-fledged member – is the people you will meet and the interactions you will have. This truth cannot be overstated.

On the surface, CPR membership offers a variety of appreciable perks and benefits:

membership 2These tools, lists and courses are amazing, but they are the tip of the value iceberg compared to the lawyers, businesspeople, academics, neutrals, staff and committee members you will meet as an engaged participant in the CPR community.

The more you put in, the more you get out.

Over time, working on committees and subcommittees, planning events and chairing task forces, CPR members get to know each other. As a team, we share our strengths – virtuoso elocution, incisive writing, vast experience, a knack for legal synthesis – and each member contributes and collaborates to help inform and create the resources that make CPR great. More importantly, trust is built, friendships are born and professional networks grow.

The rewards of CPR membership are big and small, subtle and obvious.

The stories of how, when and where CPR members recognize the value of relationships that have been strengthening throughout their time with CPR are varied and unique:

  • Finding a familiar face at a seminar,
  • Knowing exactly who to call when you are stumped on a difficult case,
  • Understanding how to frame a business proposal from the client’s perspective,
  • Winning new business, getting selected as a neutral, or hired for your next job,
  • Being confident that your complex and delicate dispute is in the most competent hands.

For those of you who are already members, I encourage you to explore new ways to engage.

How will you make your next lasting connection?

As we start off our new fiscal year, I hope this brief reminder inspires you to become even more involved. CPR brings together an awe-inspiring crowd: general counsel of Fortune 500 companies, senior partners at Am Law 100 firms and globally-respected neutrals, and young, talented attorneys on the rise – all committed to advancing the field of dispute resolution and creating a better future. What do you have to offer? What do you have to learn? Do better while doing good with us.

If you are an existing member who would like additional ideas on how to get involved – or if you are not yet a member but would like more information on joining CPR – please give me a call (646) 753-8225 or email nborofsky@cpradr.org.

Until next time,

Niki Borofsky

It’s a Wrap: Global Pound Conference Concludes

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

By Lyn Lawrence

The Global Pound Conference Series: Shaping the Future of Dispute Resolution and Improving Access to Justice (see http://bit.ly/2v4dX4V) came to its conclusion after the last local event was held in London on July 6, 2017.

The purpose of the GPC Series was “[t]o create a conversation about what can be done to improve access to justice and the quality of justice around the world in commercial conflicts and to collect actionable data,” according to the GPC’s Singapore Report from its March 2016 kickoff event (available at http://bit.ly/2voNWfU).

The GPC Series was inspired by the original Pound Conference, held in Minnesota in 1976, and the positive effect it had on improving access to justice. At its conclusion almost 41 years after the original, the GPC Series held events in 29 cities worldwide, attended by more than 2,000 participants and supported by global sponsors (which included the CPR Institute, the publisher of this blog).

A detailed discussion on the inception of the GPC Series and the New York event can be found in the following articles published in CPR’s Alternatives, “Attempting to Define the Practice, Pound Conference Organizers Launch a Worldwide Series on ADR Common Ground,” 33 Alternatives 11 (December 2015) (available at http://bit.ly/2e1WaXW) and “A Look Back On, And Forward To, the Global Pound Conference,” 35 Alternatives 1 (January 2017) (available at http://bit.ly/2t2r4Sr).

THE DATA

The data collected throughout the GPC Series belongs to the International Mediation Institute, a nonprofit mediator accreditation organization based in the Hague, Netherlands, that founded the GPC series. After each local event, an Academic Committee processed the results, which are available at http://bit.ly/2tWPo9z.

The Academic Committee also created accumulative results as the events had been concluded. At the time of posting, the most recent results consisted of data collected at the inaugural Singapore conference up until the June 29 Johannesburg conference (available at http://bit.ly/2tWYQKp), excluding only the final event in London on July 6.

Each local event had an identical set-up with the same GPC Series core questions (available at http://bit.ly/2tVFabk), divided among four sessions, and headed by a panel of professionals in dispute resolution.

The data was gathered from participants grouped into stakeholder categories. They were asked to answer the core 20 multiple-choice questions using a GPC Series Event Application that was downloaded by participants on their own electronic devices.

Before the conclusion of each session, the stakeholders were divided into groups to answer four open text questions. Many of these questions were formulated at the 2014 London pilot event (available at http://bit.ly/2ulNsdx). The results were tallied on the spot, and then displayed on a screen and discussed by the panel and conference attendees.

WHAT WAS LEARNED?

Academic Committee Chairman Prof. Barney Jordaan was cautious in adding in the Singapore Report that, “While all care was taken to ensure the integrity of the data gathering process and rigour in the formulation of the survey questions and the analysis in this Report, the Series is not intended to be primarily an academic project nor does the data gathering process represent a pure data collection environment. Any use of the GPC data must be undertaken with these limitations in mind.”

Considering these qualifications, such as the varied number of participants in each stakeholder group, there are a few noticeable highlights from the accumulated results–particularly, where there was a split or unanimous agreement among the stakeholder groups.

All four sessions had a different focus area ranging from parties’ needs and expectations to how the current commercial dispute resolution market addressed these needs and expectations. Keeping with the theme of the event, there were also several questions on steps that can be taken to improve the current dispute resolution market for commercial disputes.

The majority of the stakeholder groups voted that financial interests were the primary consideration for parties and providers alike. This is consistent with the local events that were held in the United States, particularly the New York event. Stakeholder groups were also in agreement that “external lawyers” would be the most resistant to change in commercial dispute resolution.

There was a three-way tie when it came time to deciding where “policy makers, governments and administrators” should focus their attention when improving access to justice. Receiving 46% of the votes each were the “use of protocols promoting non-adjudicative processes,” “pre-dispute or early stage case evaluation or assessment systems using third party advisors who will not be involved in subsequent proceedings” and “making non-adjudicative processes (mediation or conciliation) compulsory and/or a process parties can ‘opt-out’ of before adjudicative process can be initiated.”

With only two percentage points separating the results on the role lawyers should play in commercial disputes, advisers and adjudicative providers voted that lawyers should speak and/or advocate on a party’s behalf, while parties, non-adjudicators and “influencers” voted that lawyers should work “collaboratively” with the parties and “may request actions” on their behalf.

Stakeholder groups were mostly in agreement when it came to answering the remaining core questions; see the aggregated results at the link above.

WHAT IS NEXT?

The data from the conferences was consistent through the local events, but it is unclear how the final report will develop these findings.

Those who were unable to attend any of the local events have the opportunity to complete the core questions online until July 31. (Available at http://bit.ly/2voPRkz).

The GPC Series website, at http://globalpoundconference.org, encourages individuals to complete the core questions online as it will form part of the GPC Series data.

Once the final report is released, it will be interesting to see the final results and the impact it will have on improving dispute resolution. In addition, this GPC Series was limited to commercial disputes—perhaps the creators will expand into other areas in future projects.

One of the event organizers indicated recently the potential importance and use of the data in growing ADR. “The core questions ask these stakeholders to provide their input on the same topics,” noted former International Mediation Institute chairman and current board member Michael McIlwrath, adding that the “answers to these questions arrive at a time in which civil justice around the world is facing a moment of transformation. And international arbitration is now experiencing changes that, in our view, would have been considered heretical or at least highly unorthodox just a decade ago.” See Michael McIlwrath and Phil Ray, “The Global Pound Conference Reaches Its Conclusion: User Focus Is Now Mainstream,” Kluwer Arbitration Blog (July 5, 2017)(available at http://bit.ly/2sGmTzX).

The author is a CPR Institute Summer 2017 Intern.

CPR Launches New Cyber Panel Focused on Security Disputes and Related Insurance Claims

/ CPR Staff / 1 Comment

A cyber security breach occurs, possibly exposing consumer or other sensitive information. What happens next, at the corporate level?

Certainly underlying any serious cyber event are the questions of who is responsible, who is going to do what to remedy it and who is going to pay for it, including related insurance issues that will arise.

“With attacks occurring with both greater frequency and sophistication, smart companies and their counsel are adopting proactive strategies to prevent and/or resolve cyber-related disputes in a manner that best protects operations, customers and reputation,” said CPR President & CEO, Noah J. Hanft.

With CPR’s announcement, today, of a new CPR Cyber Panel, now those strategies can even more squarely include CPR, as well as thoughtful options outside of traditional litigation. The CPR Cyber Panel contains neutrals who are expert in data breaches and other cybersecurity issues, as well as those experienced in handling related insurance coverage disputes.

“Mediation of cyber security disputes and insurance claims if done by the right individuals can drive substantial value to all parties,” said Daniel Garrie, a longtime CPR Distinguished Neutral, Editor-in-Chief of Law & Cyber Warfare and CPR Cyber Panel member. “Of course, it is critical that your mediator have the mediation experience and real-world technical cyber expertise to ensure the right outcome. If done by the right individual supported by a quality ADR organization with strong rules and protocols, an entity will be able to realize the benefits a cyber security neutral.”

In the Law360 article, “Growing Demand for Mediation of Data Breach Disputes,” Barton LLP Partner and CPR Cyber Panel member Kenneth N. Rashbaum stated, “For reasons of financial savings, efficiency and plain peace of mind, those who prepare agreements in technology areas have increasingly turned to mediation and other dispute resolution clauses and this, in turn, has created a demand for mediators with backgrounds that comprise multiple practice areas, including cybersecurity, privacy, technology transactions and litigation. And they should open to dispute-mitigation alternatives. For example, arbitration clauses have been around for a very long time but newer and possibly less expensive modalities include ‘cooling-off and mediation’ provisions that require the aggrieved party to notify her counterpart of the disputed matter and then, only after a certain period of time, the parties will proceed to mediation and can only go further, to arbitration or litigation, if mediation fails.”

“One of the things CPR has particularly prided itself on, over its 40 year history, is being both tuned in and highly responsive to the needs of our members and the ADR community as a whole,” said CPR’s Helena Tavares Erickson, Senior Vice President,
Dispute Resolution Services and Corporate Secretary. “CPR’s new Cyber Panel is a perfect example of that dynamic in action: We were told about increasing cyber-related dispute resolution needs, and we acted. We encourage the community to let us know its needs as we are ready to act.”

CPR’s Panels of Distinguished Neutrals comprise those among the most respected and elite mediators and arbitrators in the world. They include prominent attorneys, retired state and federal judges, academics, as well as highly-skilled business executives, legal experts and dispute resolution professionals who are particularly qualified to resolve all business disputes including those involving multi-national corporations or issues of public sensitivity.

Focusing in more than 20 practice areas, CPR’s esteemed arbitrators and mediators have provided resolutions in thousands of cases, with billions of dollars at issue worldwide. Admission to one of CPR Panels occurs only after an individual is reviewed and approved by CPR and/or a select panel of high-end users, peers and/or academics. Candidates are screened for their ADR expertise and training, and candidate references are asked to comment specifically on the applicant’s qualifications to serve on complex commercial disputes. Qualification to the CPR roster is demanding and available openings are limited.

“Once again, Noah Hanft and CPR are leading the way in dispute resolution,” concluded Steven J. Antunes, Senior Litigation Counsel at AEGIS Insurance Services, Inc. “As the law regarding cyber security evolves and the claims become more sophisticated , the most cost effective manner in which to resolve cyber-related disputes may very well be through mediation.”

Congress Responds Rapidly to Block CFPB Rule Banning Mandatory Arbitration Clauses

/ CPR Staff / 1 Comment

On Monday, July 10, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced its new rule preventing banks and credit card companies from using mandatory arbitration clauses in new customer accounts.

On Tuesday, July 11, and as predicted on “CPR Speaks,” Congress moved to stop the CFPB final rule. Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton announced he was drafting a resolution to get the new CFPB rule rescinded using the Congressional Review Act. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, Chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection, is reported to be considering a similar step.

The newly popular 1996 Congressional Review Act—see the “CPR Speaks” link above–provides expedited  procedures through which the Senate may overrule regulations issued by federal agencies by enacting a joint resolution.

Characterizing the CFPB as having gone “rogue,” and its new rule as an “anti-business regulation,” Cotton is stressing the benefits of arbitration, as well as consumers’ capacity to make business decisions.

Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R., Texas, is also publicly criticizing the rule as bureaucratic and beneficial only to class action trial attorneys. He is urging Congress to work with President Trump to reform the CFPB and excessive administration by government. As also mentioned in yesterday’s post, in April Hensarling proposed H.R. 10, the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017, which would repeal the CFPB’s authority to restrict arbitration. The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

It remains to be seen whether the CFPB’s new rule will survive these and other potential congressional and court challenges. Much will depend upon the Senate and how many Republicans switch sides on this issue. Please stay tuned to this space for important developments.

SEC Office of Investor Advocate Praises Securities Arbitration Clinics

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

By Jill Gross

Congress created the Office of the Investor Advocate of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010 to, among other things, “(A) assist retail investors in resolving significant problems such investors may have with the Commission or with self-regulatory organizations (SROs); (B) identify areas in which investors would benefit from changes in the regulations of the Commission or the rules of SROs…” Exchange Act §  4g(4). In turn, the Investor Advocate appointed an Ombudsman to “act as a liaison between the Commission and any retail investor in resolving problems that retail investors may have with the Commission
or with SROs.” Exchange Act § 4(g)(8)(A). Both the Investor Advocate and the Ombudsman are required to submit reports to Congress on their activities. This week, the Office of the Investor Advocate submitted its Report on Objectives for fiscal year 2018, which included the Ombudsman’s Report.

In her Report, the Ombudsman addresses several items of interest to the dispute resolution community. First, the Report (p. 23) describes how her office is monitoring whether recommendations from the FINRA Dispute Resolution Task Force Report have been implemented in ways that help retail investors. She expresses concerns about elements of customer arbitrations at FINRA, offering another voice to the ongoing efforts to improve the fairness of securities arbitration.

Second, in recommending that the FINRA Investor Education Foundation support ongoing operations of law school securities clinics, the Ombudsman details (p. 24) the value that these clinics offer retail investors:

The Ombudsman is concerned about the challenges faced by investors—especially pro se investors who face sophisticated opposing counsel representing broker-dealer firms in a forum that has become increasingly complex—when the life savings of the investor are at stake and there is little ground for appeal. Investor rights clinics fill a critical void by supplying information and advocacy services to vulnerable retail investors in need. Competent representation of retail investors in FINRA’s dispute resolution forum is a critically important step in helping vulnerable retail investors protect their rights. These clinics and the investors they serve merit the Foundation’s support.

Third, the Ombudsman describes (p. 24) her Office’s new outreach program to the clinics, including visits with students at Pace Law’s Investor Rights Clinic and the University of Miami School of Law Investor Rights Clinic.  The Report praises the investor education work of the students, and emphasizes the importance of providing investors with representation in arbitration. The SEC’s spotlight on these law school securities clinics celebrates the tremendous work that law students do in representing investors in their disputes with their brokerage firms!

Jill I. Gross is a nationally known expert in the field of securities dispute resolution and a professor at Pace Law School. Her complete bio can be found HERE. This post was originally published in Indisputably and is reprinted with permission.