A legal spat between Amazon.com Inc. and its Indian partner that started with an arbitration verdict in Singapore has got fiercer in New Delhi courtrooms. And neither side is ready to back off.
The US e-commerce giant and Mumbai-based Future Group, whose retail assets billionaire Mukesh Ambani’s RelianceIndustries agreed to buy for $3.4 billion in August, are locked in a dispute over that deal. Amazon says Future violated a partnership contract with the asset sale to its rival and wants to scuttle it, while the indebted Indian group says it would collapse if the transaction fails.
Amazon Loses Arbitration over Gift Card Balance
Amazon Sellers Attorney, a lawyer-supervised suspension appeal service, announced today that a Washington arbitrator has denied Amazon.com (AMZN) the right to retain a customer’s gift card balance after cancellation of his account. In an arbitration against Amazon Services, LLC brought by Wesley Nahm, the arbitrator awarded over $100,000 in gift card proceeds after Amazon cancelled the buyer’s account. Amazon claimed that it reasonably suspected that Nahm either obtained or applied gift card balances fraudulently, unlawfully, or in violation of the Gift Card Terms. However, Amazon presented no evidence to support its suspicions other than an unusually large balance and the large number of refunded transactions.
Read moreExplained: Why Amazon is feuding with Future Group, billionaire Mukesh Ambani?
A legal spat between Amazon.com Inc. and its Indian partner that started with an arbitration verdict in Singapore has got fiercer in New Delhi courtrooms. And neither side is ready to back off.
The US e-commerce giant and Mumbai-based Future Group, whose retail assets billionaire Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries Ltd. agreed to buy for $3.4 billion in August, are locked in a dispute over that deal. Amazon says Future violated a partnership contract with the asset sale to its rival and wants to scuttle it, while the indebted Indian group says it would collapse if the transaction fails.
Read moreAmazon-Future row: Singapore's arbitration court forms 3-member panel to pass final verdict
Amid ongoing arbitration battle between US-based Amazon and Kishore Biyani-led Future Retail, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) on Tuesday formed a three-member panel to pass its final verdict on Future Group's Rs 24,713 crore deal with Reliance Industries Ltd. Both the parties have reportedly agreed to the names of the three-member arbitration tribunal required for the arbitration process, which is expected to start over the next fortnight.
Read moreSingapore's arbitration court sets up panel for final verdict on Amazon-Future case
There will be two members in the arbitration panel when the case will come up for hearing in the next few weeks, says a person aware of the development
US-based e-commerce giant Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC and Kishore Biyani-founded Future Group are gearing up for the final battle at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) over Future Group’s ₹24,713-crore deal with Asia’s richest man Mukesh Ambani-owned Reliance Industries Ltd. This, as SIAC formed its panel on Tuesday to pass its final judgement on the high-profile arbitration case between Amazon and Future Group.
Read moreAmazon, Future pick arbitrators for Singapore tribunal
Amazon and Future Group have appointed their respective arbitrators to form a tribunal that will look into the proceedings at the Singapore International Arbitration Court (SIAC) in the dispute related to Future’s deal with Reliance Retail.
Read moreB.C. Court rules in favour of Amazon arbitration clause
While Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc. awaits conclusion at the Supreme Court of Canada, a B.C. court has stayed a proposed class proceeding brought against Amazon, which was based on an arbitration clause mandating arbitration in the U.S.
In Heller, The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a stay of a proposed class action, finding the arbitration clause unconscionable. In Williams v. Amazon.com, Inc., plaintiff John Williams argued his facts were similar to Heller but failed to persuade Justice Karen Horsman of the B.C. Supreme Court.
Read more