Credit Repair actKredit-Reparaturgesetz (Credit Repair Act)
Therefore, the Federal Arbitration Court Act monitors and the claimants must settle their claim.
Greenwood Compucredit Corp.: 8-1 SCOTUS ruling states that the Credit Repair Companies Act does not exclude arbitration.
Today, in a very brief ruling, the US Supreme Court found that the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) does not exclude the possibility of settling claims by consumers for alleged breaches of that Act. Greenwood, 565 U.S. ___ (2012). 8-1 was drafted by (who else?) Justice Scalia, with a unanimous view submitted by Justice Sotomayor and supported by Justice Kagan, and a rejection by Justice Ginsburg.
In spite of the expression of support in the Holdings, opinion shows that there may be differences of opinion in the courts as to how clear the Congress must be in order to exclude the mediation of certain legal rights. At CompuCredit, consumer have filed a complaint against the credit cardholder's card provider for alleged breaches of CROA. According to these consumer argues, referral arrangements in their contract are not enforceable, as CROA requires that all actions leading to their enforcement be tried in the courts.
Together with customers, the German Bundesbezirksgericht and Ninth Circuits found that CROA had prevented the implementation of the dispute settlement agreement. In this case, the key issue was whether CROA's demand that a customer be granted a "right to sue" for breaches of the law was enough to waive the authority of the arbitral tribunal to enforce conciliation arrangements.
According to the prediction, the Supreme Court found that the speech showed no intention on the part of Congress to exclude an arbitral procedure, mainly because the "right to bring an action" was only contained in a section of the Act on what had to be disclosed to the consumer and not in a section describing in detail the remedies provided by the Act.
Most people also referred to the term'right to bring an action' as'a commonly used means of informing the consumer that they have a right', but not one which precludes the option of recourse to an arbitral tribunal. Perhaps more important than what the Supreme Court said in CompuCredit is what the Supreme Court did not say in CompuCredit.
No new or higher standards have been established by the Supreme Court as to how clearly Congress must demonstrate its intention to bypass the FAA in the preparation of laws. Indeed, this seems to be the whole point of consensus of the judges Sotomayor and Kagan. As a " clearness " example, the vast majority considered a law (7 U.S.C. 26(n)(2)) that "does not provide for an ex ante settlement arrangement is effective or enforcable if the arrangement necessitates settlement of a disagreement that arises out of this section.
" However, Justice Sotomayor wrote in her unanimous opinion: "I do not comprehend that the vast majority of respondents believe that Congress must talk so explicit to mediate its intention to exclude mediation from legal rights. "In the disagreement, Justice Ginsburg reminded her counterparts that under the present precedent, Congress does not have to use "magic words" to bypass the FAA.
Since CompuCredit is not conducting a new test for the search for an oversteering of the FAA by Congress, it will be interesting to see whether this will affect the actual trends in litigation, whether an arbitral procedure is excluded under certain national laws. Also it will be interesting to see if Congress receives the embassy and starts to add a very straightforward speech about whether or not the dispute resolution procedure complies with the draft law.