This is our third installment covering the action brought by B.D. Cooke & Partners Ltd. (“Cooke”) to recover money from certain underwriters at Lloyd’s, London as the assignee of rights under certain reinsurance contracts. In an April 24, 2009 post, we detailed the federal district court concluding, among other things, that the liquidator’s right not to be compelled to arbitrate was not assigned to Cooke and compelling arbitration between Cooke and the defendants. In a January 27, 2010 post, we covered the federal district court denying the defendants’ motion to stay arbitration pending the result of Cooke’s motion for reconsideration. The federal district court has now denied Cooke’s motion for reconsideration, finding that Cooke essentially asserted the same arguments regarding the enforceability of the arbitration clause and the defendants’ waiver of the right to remove the action and rejecting Cooke’s argument concerning the scope of the arbitration clause because the dispute concerned matters of performance under the contracts. B.D. Cooke & Partners Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Case No. 08-3435 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2010).
This post written by Dan Crisp.