WOW! AMEX not letting go of arbitration....

[trueq]

Got an amendment to arbitration clause from AMEX today.

They are amending JAMS in.

NOT amending NAF out.

This was interesting language I've never seen before,

"The party asserting the (arbitration) claim shall simutaneously notify the other of its selection."

What if your are asserting no claim, but electing arbitration?

To me, this would force AMEX to initiate, but NAF, AAA, JAMS will not take their claim for debt collection!

THEN THERE IS THE REALLY INTERESTING AMENDMENT PROVISION! (I can't, for the life of me, AT FIRST, figured out why they put this in here! (until i read bold line. looks like AMEX lawyers read NCLC updates)

"In addition to the arbitration organizations listed above, claims may be referred to any other arbitration organization that is mutually agreable in writing by you and us, or to an arbitration organization or arbitrator(s) appointed pursuant to section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USC sections 1-16 (FAA), provided that the arbitration organization and arbitrator(s) enforce terms of sections 7.c and 7.d."

Boy is this a mess.

1.) This agreement extends powers the FAA does not have under section 5! Section 5 does not allow alternate arbitration forum appointments, just arbitrators.

2.) What happens when mutual agreement cannot be had for alternate arbitration forum? Will parties argue over replacement forum or mere arbitrator? The judge will have to decide in court on forcing an arbitrator (allowed under FAA), or alternate forum (not allowed under FAA).

This is a "world cruise" legal nighmare for AMEX when suing on debt collection and consumr exercises arbitration clause.

This allows consumer to make it even more of a "mess" than arbitration is now.

Edited October 29, 2009 by trueq

[GAMtgGuy]

Trueq,

Thanks again!

This may help on my 2 GA cases with Zwicker/Amex.

I filed the Motion to Vacate today to fight back against the MSJ I lost in the first case.

The second case, I just prepared the Motion to Dismiss and am going to try to get that one thrown out do to my exercising of the Arbitration Clause.

GaMtgGuy

[GAMtgGuy]

Trueq,

I just hung up with Jim Feagle, the consumer attorney who won that Edwards vs. Niagra case in District and Circuit Courts. (quick plug...if you are in GA and want attorny help in fighting back against collection companies -- probably a good guy to talk with).

He indicated to me that AAA is taking all of the CONSUMER initiated arbitration they can get, but are not taking the cases from the creditors.

The key is to not initiate it, but to have the Judge order Amex to do so right...? That puts the whole thing in a catch-22.....

GaMtgGuy

[trueq]

AAA is taking consumer cases and accepting counterclaims for debt from credit card.

AAA will not accept initial case from credit card.

NEVER EVER INITIATE WITH AAA! That gives creditors a door into AAA!

This is why its good news JAMS has been amended in for AMEX...if you are forced by judge to initate...you can now choose JAMS!

Remember what JAMS chief legal counsel said:

Jay Welsh: "No. I just wanted to make sure that -- one of the reasons I wanted to be here is so that the broad brush wouldn't be too broad. JAMS doesn't do debt-collection arbitrations. Never has. And although I've been getting a lot of calls lately from banks asking if we would be willing to do it, my response is that it's like asking somebody who doesn't drink whether you're gonna start drinking. [ Laughter ] But we have had consumer protection since the mid-, late-'90s where in consumer cases, one of the requirements is that consumers don't pay. They just pay what they would pay if they filed in court. They don't pay the arbitrator's fees in consumer arbitrations as that is defined. So the cost of the arbitrator -- and I believe even NAF, everything was paid by the company. I don't think that's a reason in these kinds of debt-collection cases." Full FTC Roundtable testimony available at: http://htc01.media.globix.net/COMP008760MOD1/ftc_web/FTCindex.html#Sep29_09

If JAMS were to accept the "counter claim debt collection arbitration" you could sue JAMS for deceptive trade practice!

The key here is: FORCE THE CREDITOR TO INITIATE BY GETING IT INTO THE COURT ORDER. Then its a mess. After all, "we are poor pro se' litigants that know nothing about this complex process"!

HOWEVER! The new AMEX cardholder amendment requires a "claim" to "initiate". You can elect arbitration, but what if you have no claim against AMEX to file? The contract amendment seems to require you to to have a claim to be able initiate arbitration in the AMEX amendment! this amendment makes excellent argument for requiring AMEX to initate, which leaves JAMS, NAF, AAA out!

Then it goes to the new "crazy" alternate provision, which is a buttload of court time and appeals waiting to happen!!!!

Edited October 29, 2009 by trueq