Boys and Girls Ultimate: State Championships
Teams must qualify.
Case 10-948- CompuCredit Corporation v. Greenwood.
Cheif Justice John G. Roberts
my case is "Whether claims
arising under the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq.,
are subject to arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement."
According to http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/compucredit-corp-v-greenwood/?wpmp_switcher=desktop
The decision made
by the courts was that the federal statutes that both create a right to sue
also bar waiver of rights under thee statute are sufficiently explicit to
override the strong federal policy in favor of arbitrability expressed in the
federal arbitration act. The relative language is virtually indistinguishable
from that and the credit repair organization fact that we have before us today
the cases inclide the ADEA and CROA which create a cause of action for
aggrivated parties to bring actions for damages and both statutes explicitly
bar waiver of quote "any right under the statute. Well, that statute
didn't have as this one has a disclosure requirement that says you have a right
to sue. And that's the sole distinction between the two statutes. So the --
first of all the disclosure statute is a -- describes in layman's terms, gives
a quick description of an operative civil liability section which is set out in
1679(g) and which tells us exactly what Congress had in mind in creating a
cause of action. And when you look at the language of the actual operative
provisions in (g), it's almost as if Congress deliberately went out of its way
to use language that would not preclude arbitration.The
Supreme Court's decision will clarify the extent of the federal policy favoring
arbitration and will elucidate how consumers may proceed against credit repair
organizations under the CROA.
The decision the court made is not really clear basically, they were both in the wrong to certain dagree, the wording used in both documents was almost identical, and there was a part in their documents saying that they did not have the right to sue the other party.