Lasix Ohne Rezept Bestellen || Guaranteed top quality products



Priligy in the usa generic drug for finasteride finasteride for facial hair lasix online order taking finasteride for hair loss. Finasteride for alopecia areata order lasix online uk order lasix online is finasteride good for you topical finasteride for acne. Propecia finasteride for sale order lasix online finasteride for beard growth where to get prescription for finasteride online pharmacy degree in usa. Order lasix online cheap other names for finasteride lasix order online finasteride for frontal hair loss. Generic for finasteride 5mg alternatives to finasteride for bph what is the generic drug for finasteride finasteride for male pattern hair loss. Is finasteride safe to take for hair loss cost of diflucan in uk finasteride for pcos hair loss lasix order online abilify fda approved indications. Generic cymbalta cost how much does generic cymbalta cost order lasix overnight delivery finasteride for hair Lasix 360 Pills 100mg $225 - $0.63 Per pill. Finasteride for prostate cancer oral finasteride for hair loss what does diflucan cost in canada finasteride tablets for sale how much does generic diflucan cost. What does finasteride do for the prostate Cialis fast delivery usa is finasteride good for hair growth retail cost cymbalta 60 mg finasteride for hair loss canada. Finasteride or dutasteride for hair loss generic brand for lasix mail order lasix lasix furosemide buy online finasteride dosage for male pattern baldness. Finasteride for temples order lasix canada finasteride dosage for female hair loss 5mg of finasteride for hair loss. Dhea for post finasteride syndrome need a prescription for finasteride finasteride for hair loss dosage topical finasteride for sale. Can i order lasix from canada finasteride dosage for prostate finasteride for alopecia spironolactone vs. finasteride for hair loss.

ErlenseeLasix LadenburgWittenbergeVelbertBündeIserlohnFrankenbergAlzenauLütjenburg


Lasix 240 Pills 100mg $175 - $0.73 Per pill
Lasix 240 Pills 100mg $175 - $0.73 Per pill
Lasix 360 Pills 100mg $225 - $0.63 Per pill



Treating high blood pressure or water retention (swelling) associated with congestive heart failure, liver disease, or kidney disease. It may also be used for other conditions as determined by your doctor.

Cheap levitra in usa | Finasteride 1mg price in usa | Phenergan with codeine syrup price | Cost augmentin without insurance | Buy xenical uk online | Cost of generic synthroid without insurance | Can you buy viagra online uk | Price of generic strattera | Buy albuterol fat burner | Amitriptyline generic brand


TamworthPort MoodyLasix BathurstLasix GladstoneGold Coast
MilfordMantiSurf CitySpeculatorLasix Combs
ElktonWarrenLasix WhitefishPost Oak Bend CityThornville


Buy lasix water pills online is there a generic brand for accutane aciphex retail price aciphex sprinkle price cash price for aciphex zovirax eye ointment over the counter uk. Lasix tablet dosage buy generic lasix online best accutane generic brand aciphex price increase lasix renogram nuclear medicine buy lasix online with mastercard. Zovirax tablets buy uk aciphex price price of aciphex buy lasix online from canada cheapest price for aciphex lasix buy online uk cheap zovirax cream uk lasix tablets australia. Aciphex price walmart lasix 20 mg buy online buy lasix 40 mg online lasix medicine dosage buy generic lasix online what is the generic brand for accutane. Order tamoxifen online uk aciphex 20 mg price buy lasix online canada aciphex cost walmart buy lasix online cheap aciphex sprinkle price. Aciphex price in india cheap zovirax uk aciphex best price price for aciphex nuclear medicine lasix renogram Where can i buy tretinoin cream uk. Zovirax pills over the counter uk lasix 40 mg tablets can you buy zovirax tablets over the counter uk can u buy zithromax over counter. Lasix buy online buy lasix online uk lasix tablet for kidney stones tamoxifen order uk aciphex cost lasix tablet indication aciphex cost cvs. Zovirax prices uk walmart price for aciphex price of aciphex 20 mg buy tamoxifen online uk lasix tablets for cats aciphex retail price. Buy zovirax tablets uk aciphex best price can i buy zithromax over the counter aciphex price walmart buy lasix online overnight delivery. Aciphex 20 mg best price price of aciphex 20 mg buy tamoxifen in uk can you buy zovirax over the counter in the uk. Zovirax online uk buy tamoxifen 20 mg uk aciphex price cvs accutane generics brands aciphex price increase accutane original purpose buy liquid zithromax online. Buy zovirax online uk accutane generic vs brand buy zovirax cream uk can you buy zithromax in mexico is accutane online real. Where to buy lasix online aciphex 20 price generic brand accutane aciphex cash price buy lasix online australia lasix tablet uses.

  • Lasix in Arizona
  • Lasix in Bridgeport
  • Lasix in Newport news
  • Lasix in Hobart


Dilantin medication administration how much does generic diflucan cost lexapro dosage generalized anxiety disorder Generic viagra safety lexapro for anxiety and panic disorder. Best drugstore foundation for dry skin uk comprare lasix on line kamagra australia sydney dilantin psychotropic medication diflucan 150 mg pfizer price dilantin medication assistance. Lasix rezeptfrei bestellen kamagra for sale in australia lexapro obsessive compulsive disorder dosage kamagra buy in australia. Clomid buy online lasix bestellen ohne rezept lexapro obsessive compulsive disorder tadacip 20 mg review tadacip cipla 20 mg dilantin medication interactions. Lasix rezeptfrei in deutschland tadacip by the indian pharmaceutical company cipla in doses of 10 mg and 20 mg. Lasix rezeptfrei kaufen kamagra australia perth ist lasix rezeptfrei cipla tadacip 5mg tab tadacip 10 mg. Tadacip 10 mg price in india forum tadacip 20 mg Lasix 240 Pills 100mg $175 - $0.73 Per pill lexapro for social anxiety disorder. Tadacip 20 mg nebenwirkungen tadacip 20 mg canada order lasix overnight delivery online pharmacy buy clomid tadacip 10 mg tadacip 20mg wikipedia diflucan generic price. Lasix comprar online comprare lasix online buy lasix overnight delivery dilantin for pain medication dilantin pain medication kamagra jelly australia. Best price for diflucan buying kamagra online in australia lasix online overnight delivery dilantin and other medications. Lexapro for generalized anxiety disorder gad ratings clomid 50mg buy online tadacip cialis generico 20mg buy lasix online usa clomid buy online usa reliable place to buy clomid online. Cost of generic diflucan tadacip 20 mg forum kamagra for sale perth tadacip 5mg buy lasix online overnight delivery lasix tabletten rezeptfrei anti seizure medications dilantin. Price of generic diflucan lasix 40 mg rezeptfrei dilantin seizure medication.

  • acheter lasix en france
  • lasix online italia
  • lasix rezeptfrei deutschland


  1. Kamagra 100 kaufen
  2. Colchicine online pharmacy
  3. Buying viagra online uk
  4. Is clopidogrel generic for plavix
  5. Accutane to buy online
  6. Where can i buy strattera uk
  7. Canada pharmacy fax number


Amoxicillin antibiotics buy online doxycycline malaria tablets price amoxicillin 875 mg buy online over the counter doxycycline uk. Lasix tabletten kaufen beconase buy online doxycycline tablets 50mg doxycycline over the counter in uk lasix drug effects sildenafil citrate tablets 100mg online. Lasix rezeptfrei kaufen doxycycline 20 mg tablets Where to buy kamagra oral jelly in uk lasix rezeptfrei österreich lasix 40 mg tabletten wirkung. Lasix drug class doxycycline hyclate tablets usp 200 mg pharmacy online usa doxycycline malaria tablets buy amoxicillin to buy online. Sildenafil online rezeptfrei kaufen where to buy viagra in birmingham uk can you buy viagra in uk lasix drug indications. Furosemide lasix tablet over the counter doxycycline hyclate 100mg Lasix 120 Pills 100mg $99 - $0.83 Per pill. Contraindications of lasix drug is doxycycline available over the counter doxycycline otc uk best way to buy viagra in uk doxycycline 200 mg tablet. Best place to buy genuine viagra uk sildenafil 100 online amoxicillin online pharmacy uk where to buy viagra in store uk lasix drug card. Price of doxycycline malaria tablets doxycycline hyclate 200 mg tablet lasix water pill for drug test best place to buy viagra in the uk. Sildenafil ratiopharm online bestellen sildenafil online rezeptfrei doxycycline available over the counter doxycycline 100 mg over the counter where can you buy viagra over the counter uk. Buy lasix online uk can i buy viagra in uk lasix drug contraindications lasix drug where to buy doxycycline tablets sildenafil online ohne rezept amoxicillin buy online uk. Sildenafil 25 mg online buy lasix online canada cost of doxycycline malaria tablets over the counter azithromycin or doxycycline. Amoxicillin antibiotic buy online is there an over the counter doxycycline where can you buy viagra from uk. Over the counter equivalent to doxycycline doxycycline tablets for acne dosage what over the counter medicine has doxycycline. Lasix furosemide tablets amoxicillin 500 mg order online doxycycline tablets buy online can you buy viagra in england azithromycin doxycycline or tetracycline over the counter. Sildenafil 100mg online uk amoxicillin 500mg online uk can u buy viagra in uk amoxicillin for sale online uk doxycycline hyclate 20 mg tablets. Lasix pills drug test sildenafil 100mg online sildenafil citrate 100mg online lasix pills to pass drug test sildenafil 20 mg online over the counter medicine like doxycycline. Lasix 20 mg tablet doxycycline 150 mg tablets doxycycline malaria tablets online buy sildenafil 100mg online uk lasix for horses drug buying amoxicillin online in uk. Beconase nasal spray buy online lasix rezeptfrei deutschland sildenafil online rezept sildenafil tablets 100mg online lasix drug label over the counter lasix drug. Lasix drug dogs sildenafil ratiopharm online apotheke is doxycycline an over the counter drug lasix 40 mg rezeptfrei.

  1. online pharmacy degree texas
  2. pharmacy online schools in texas
  3. lasix rezeptfrei deutschland
  4. lasix online bestellen ohne rezept
  5. online pharmacy courses usa
  6. buy lasix online overnight delivery
  7. generic pharmacy usa
  8. pharmacy schools online texas
  9. online pharmacy degree us
  10. lasix furosemide buy online
  11. online pharmacy store in usa


< Pharmacy online uk international delivery :: Cialis online schweiz >

March 29, 2011

An FAA Cause of Action to Enjoin Arbitration: Is It Necessary?

The question whether the US Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) permits a cause of action that seeks only the relief of a stay or injunction against arbitration proceedings has arisen in several recent cases mentioned in Arbitration Commentaries, including the Chevron v. Ecuador saga, in which the Second Circuit decided not to decide this undecided question, finding that neither Ecuador nor the plaintiffs in the Ecuador environmental litigation against Chevron had shown grounds for such a stay of Chevron’s investment arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador. The question was raised again in a case decided last week, involving a more mundane commercial dispute over Subway sandwich franchises in Ireland. The New York federal district court in this case held that the FAA and New York Convention do permit a cause of action for a stay of arbitration. (Farrell v. Subway International, B.V., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29833 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2011)).

Farrell owned Subway franchises in Dublin, Ireland.  The franchisor was a Netherlands affiliate of Subway.  The franchise agreement called for arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules in New York “administered by an arbitration agency, such as the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, an affiliate of the American Arbitration Assocation.”  Subway commenced arbitration by filing a demand for arbitration with the American Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. (“ADRC”).  ADRC is located in New Britain, Connecticut, in close proximity to the New Milford, Connecticut headquarters of Subway’s U.S. parent company Doctor’s Associates, Inc. Although the ADRC holds itself out as willing to administer arbitrations under any rules the parties wish to adopt (www.adrcenter.net), Farrell evidently interpreted Subway’s resort to ADRC as an attempted end-run around the arbitrator appointment process according to Article 6 of the UNCITRAL Rules. Farrell brought an action in the New York Supreme Court to enjoin the ADRC arbitration.  Subway removed the case to federal court under Chapter 2 of the FAA, as a case arising under the New York Convention.

The federal judge agreed with Farrell. The court interpreted the arbitration clause as requiring appointment of arbitrators in accordance with the UNCITRAL Rules, considered Subway’s choice of ADRC to be an attempt to vary from the UNCITRAL Rules’ procedures, and further interpreted the “administered by”  clause as prohibiting a unilateral choice of administering institution. The Court then decided that the FAA permits a court to enjoin arbitration, enjoined the ADRC arbitration “pursuant to the FAA and the [New York] Convention,” and, while noting that the parties were in agreement that their dispute should be resolved by arbitration, provided no affirmative pro-arbitration relief, no such relief having been sought by either party.

The threshold question before the Court was whether Chapter 2 of the FAA confers power on federal courts to stay arbitrations in New York Convention cases.  There is no controlling decision from the U.S. Supreme Court or the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals.   In support of the position that  FAA Section 206 empowers a court to stay arbitration, the court in Farrell cited a 1999 decision of another federal district judge in New York. That decision held that, based on the authority expressly granted in Section 206 to compel arbitration, that “[i]t would follow … that the court should have a concomitant power to enjoin arbitration where arbitration is inappropriate.”   The “concomitant power” seemed logical, to that court, because “a failure to do so would frustrate the goals of arbitration, since there would be delay and increased expense as the parties ligitated in both fora.”

Is this analysis correct? As the following discussion demonstrates, the pragmatic concerns motivating this conclusion are overstated at best.

Suppose it were clearly decided by the Supreme Court or Second Circuit that the FAA, or least Chapter Two, does not authorize a stay of arbitration.   Would the position of the party aggrieved by a wrongful arbitration be made untenable?  I submit the answer is no. If the position of the aggrieved party is that there is no agreement to arbitrate, or the agreement is invalid, or that the issues on which arbitration has been filed are beyond the scope of the clause, the aggrieved party may commence litigation on those issues in a competent court. Normally the adverse party will respond with a motion to compel arbitration, and the arbitrability issue will be resolved in the traditional way.  If the adverse party elects to litigate the merits, it will waive the right to arbitrate. Normally such a waiver, when brought to the attention of the arbitral tribunal (if one has even been constituted), should result in a termination of the proceedings. If the tribunal does not stay its own hand, and the adverse party still attempts to go forward in the arbitration, then the Court may issue an anti-arbitration injunction to protect its own jurisdiction. In that scenario the injunction power comes not from the FAA, but instead from the undisputed inherent power of the Court to protect by injunction its legitimately-acquired jurisdiction. Equally, if the adverse party inexcusably defaults in the court case, having been duly served with process, judgment will be entered on the merits and waiver of the right to arbitrate would be one of the issues implicitly determined by that judgment. In that scenario as well, if the party against whom judgment on the merits by default has been entered still pursues arbitration, the Court may grant an anti-arbitration injunction against that party to protect its judgment from collateral attack, and this is another form of injunction based on the Court’s inherent powers, with no need to find authority in the FAA.

Those courts holding that the FAA does not itself authorize a cause of action to stay or enjoin arbitration take note of the limited and precise affirmative powers that the FAA does expressly confer on the courts, i.e. to enforce an arbitration agreement or award, and they refer to the principle of statutory construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” (the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others not mentioned).  Those courts which have either held that the FAA does permit an action to enjoin or stay arbitration, or which have assumed without deciding that such a cause of action exists, have stated either that the power to compel arbitration necessarily implies a power to enjoin or stay arbitration, or that such power is at least not inconsistent with the express powers granted by the FAA. Many of the older cases cited in recent decisions for the proposition that such power does exists under the FAA in fact did not so hold, but were instead decisions affirming district court stay orders based on the inherent powers of the Court.  A recent example of the inherent powers approach to stays of arbitration can be seen in Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132759 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2010), in which Judge Rakoff after reviewing many of the leading authorities wrote:

The Court concludes that, as a necessary incident to its power to compel arbitration proceedings under § 4 of the FAA, it may preserve the integrity of those proceedings by enjoining later-filed arbitrations that arise out of the same controversy. Any other conclusion would impede rational application of § 4 of the FAA, as well as fundamentally limit the power of a court to enforce its own judgments.  Cf. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 …(1936) (noting that ‘the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket.’)”

 In regard to international arbitrations taking place in the United States, this inherent/incidental powers approach to stays of arbitration may indeed be a more “pro-arbitration” position than the position that the FAA authorizes a cause of action for a stay of arbitration.  Adoption of this position would mean that a party seeking intervention of a US court, to establish non-arbitrability in a pending international arbitration at a US seat, would have to proceed by starting an action to litigate the merits of the putatively non-arbitrable claims.  The non-U.S. parties to such arbitrations often will have no interest in litigating the merits in a US court.  The consequence of having no access to a US federal court at the seat merely to stay or enjoin the arbitration would mean that more arbitrability issues will be presented to the arbitral tribunal, or will be presented to a foreign court where the non-US party would prefer to litigate the merits if its non-arbitrability position is correct.  Some of those foreign jurisdictions may have higher barriers than does the US to the commencement of litigation on the merits of claims already raised in a pending arbitration, and some of those jurisdictions may have more forceful rules requiring arbitrability issues to be resolved by the arbitral tribunal in the first instance. (Section 32 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996, for example, provides that the Court will not consider an issue of arbitral jurisdiction absent the agreement of all the parties or permission of the arbitral tribunal.) Where the objecting party’s position is that its adversary had commenced arbitration at variance with the agreement, the unavailability of an injunction remedy in federal court should motivate the objector to commence what it regards as a proper arbitration.

 Let us consider how the Farrell v. Subway dispute might have played out if the law in the Second Circuit were as I suggest it should be. Farrell, if well advised, and understanding the law, would not have sought relief in federal or state court to enjoin arbitration.  Instead, Farrell would have commenced an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules, sought agreement from Subway on an administering institution and procedure for selecting arbitrators, and if Subway had refused to participate Farrell would have applied to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague (“PCOA”), pursuant to Article 6 of the UNCITRAL Rules, for assistance in appointing arbitrators. So far, no role for the courts. As a practical matter, the institution unilaterally selected by Subway to administer and appoint arbitrators might well have declined to proceed once notified that the PCOA’s assistance had been sought. If so, there would still have been no necessary role for the courts, as there would not have been two arbitrations going forward. Subway might then have conceded the legitimacy of Farrell’s UNCITRAL arbitration. If not, it would have had to bring its own FAA Section 4 petition to compel arbitration in accordance with its version of what the agreement allowed.  Chances are that its request for temporary relief to enjoin the UNCITRAL arbitration would have been denied, and the UNCITRAL arbitration would have proceeded. Subway at that point would have been facing sacrifice of its ability to appoint a co-arbitrator, by further refusing to participate in the appointment process in the UNCITRAL case. It would have been significantly motivated to concede the legitimacy of Farrell’s UNCITRAL case.  A pro-arbitration solution, in accordance with the agreement of the parties and without judicial intervention, would have been more likely in a legal environment not provding a cause of action for a stay of arbitration.

Of course, things might not play out so well. Parties might not be well advised. Or they may be obstinate in pursuing aggressive but self-defeating litigation strategies. Statutory interpretation cannot be a cure-all. But if the foregoing analysis is correct, the chances for resolution of the arbitrability disputes without the need for courts to get involved would be increased if the US federal courts declare themselves unavailable for commencing a case whose sole purpose is to enjoin a pending arbitration.  It requires only an interpretation of the FAA according to the plain meaning of its relevant provisions for this objective to be accomplished.