Unresolved Questions in the Wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Class Arbitration Ruling in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds International

The article focuses on the Supreme Court’s decision in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Int’l., which ruled on when class action procedures can be used in arbitration.  The article discusses Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion which could, according to partner Bob Crotty, ​“eviscerate the majority opinion because class action arbitration arises most often in consumer transactions and employment contexts, areas Ginsburg presumably referred to as ​‘contracts of adhesion.’” The author also examined Carnegie v. Household International, Inc. and the differences between a settlement class and a litigation class.