Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi described Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity,” a phrase that, while defamatory of a uniquely adapted cephalopod minding its own business 3,000 feet under the sea, rang true.
In April 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark opinion in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted California’s Discover Bank rule, which had previously voided waivers of class arbitration in most consumer cases.
The Beginning of the End for Wage & Hour Class Actions Through Arbitration Agreements? Second Circuit Sets Stage
Suppose you have your employees’ sign agreements to arbitrate all of their employment disputes. (I’ve talked about arbitration agreements in many posts before.)
Since Concepcion, the plaintiffs’ bar has been exhorting courts to recognize exceptions to its holding that courts may not refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement on the ground that it precludes class actions.
Second Circuit Holds That Employers Can Use Arbitration Agreements to Avoid Pattern or Practice Class Actions
On March 21, 2013, the Second Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 11-5229 (2d Cir. Mar. 21, 2013). In a significant ruling for employers, the Second Circuit held that a plaintiff has no substantive right to pursue a pattern or practice claim via a class action and, therefore, must arbitrate her discrimination claims on a bilateral basis in accord with her arbitration agreement.
Second Circuit Upholds Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements That Bar Title VII Class Actions, Finding That There is No Substantive Statutory Right to Pursue a Pattern-or-Practice Claim
On March 21, 2013, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Parisi v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Case No. 11-5229, reversing a decision from the Southern District of New York, and holding that arbitration agreements which preclude Title VII class actions are enforceable.
In a major victory for employers, a New York federal circuit court ruled yesterday that an employer with a mandatory arbitration agreement with Goldman Sachs can require an employee to go to arbitration on a Title VII class action because Title VII contains no substantive right to pursue a pattern-or-practice sex-bias claim.
By the time you read this blog post, you undoubtedly will have seen one of the stories in the mainstream media reporting on the February 25, 2013 decision of Southern District Court Jed Rakoff ordering former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta to repay most of the legal fees the company incurred in connection with the government’s investigation and prosecution of Gupta.
Court Upholds Fraud Claims Based On Allegations of Opinions Expressed by Bank to Induce Plaintiff to Purchase Toxic Securities in Order to Avoid Losses: Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) V Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
In an October 18, 2012, decision by Justice Kornreich, the court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff-mutual fund sued defendant-investment bank in connection with the purchase of a certain mortgage-backed securities.