The Department of Justice Antitrust Division (the "Division") recently released updated guidance outlining when and how the Division will use arbitration in civil cases and merger investigations in the place of traditional litigation.1 The Division now encourages the use of arbitration in "appropriate" cases that would benefit from the use of such alternative dispute resolution techniques.2
Read moreDOJ frowns on settling disputes on live TV
The Justice department through the Office of the Alternative Dispute Resolution on Wednesday cautioned warring parties against the settlement of their disputes through live television programs.
OADR Executive Director Irene Alogoc said confidentiality in settling issues out of court was necessary.
“I think we would not recommend such television programs because our number one consideration if you go to ADR is the confidentiality of it all,” Alogoc said during the virtual press conference for the coming first-ever national alternative dispute resolution convention scheduled on Dec. 2 to 4.
Read moreDOJ Issues New Guidance On Its Use Of Arbitration
Last week, the Antitrust Division (Division) of the U.S. Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) issued a memorandum providing further guidance to Division attorneys and the public on the use of arbitration in civil enforcement matters. This guidance stemmed from a closely watched challenge to aluminum giant Novelis Inc.’s planned acquisition of Ohio aluminum company Aleris Corp. last year.
Read moreDOJ Issues New Guidance on the Use of Arbitration To Resolve Antitrust Division Matters
The Department of Justice issued new guidance last week on the use of arbitration in Antitrust Division matters. The Division’s guidance comes in the wake of its use of arbitration for the first time in United States v. Novelis Inc. and Aleris Corporation. The new guidance sets forth the Antitrust Division’s policy “to encourage the use of ADR techniques in those civil cases where there is a reasonable likelihood that ADR would shorten the time necessary to resolve a dispute, reduce the taxpayer resources used to resolve a dispute, or otherwise improve the outcome for the United States.”[1]
Read more