To the surprise of many New York and New Jersey businesses, the answer may be yes.
Based on the theory of “intertwinement,” at least one New Jersey court has held that parties who did not sign the underlying arbitration agreement can be forced to arbitrate their claims.
In an April 23, 2011, unreported Opinion, the Appellate Division held that Michael and Robyn Hirsch were required to submit their claims against Amper Financial Services (“Amper”) to a Financial Industry Regulatory Agency (“FINRA”) arbitration panel even though the Hirsches had no agreement to arbitrate disputes between themselves and Amper. The ruling appeared to be contrary to the generally accepted principle that arbitration is a creature of contract and parties may be required to arbitrate only with persons with whom they have contracted to arbitrate their disputes.
The Honorable Anthony Parillo, writing for a two judge appellate panel, held that intertwinement is an exception to that general rule. While the Hirsches didn’t have an agreement to arbitrate with Amper, they did have an agreement to arbitrate disputes with Securities America, Inc. (“SAI”). SAI was the brokerage firm through which securities recommended to the Hirsches by Amper were purchased.
When the Hirsches, who lost their entire investment to a Ponzi scheme, sought to arbitrate their claims against SAI and to litigate against Amper, first the Trial Court and then the Appellate Division held that the claims were so intertwined that the arbitration agreement with SAI required the Hirsches to submit their claims against Amper to FINRA as well.
A different appellate panel had rejected “intertwinement” as an exception to the arbitration is strictly a creature of contract rule. In that case, Agrisani v. Financial Technology Ventures, 402 N.J. Super. 138 (App. Div. 2008) the Honorable Stephen Skillman wrote:
If the cases relied upon by FT Ventures actually held that a party to a contract containing an arbitration clause could be forced to arbitrate a claim against a nonsignatory to the contract simply because his claim was “inextricably intertwined” with that contract, those cases could not be reconciled with the fundamental principle that a party can be forced to arbitrate only those issues it has specifically agreed to submit to arbitration.
The Supreme Court has now accepted the Hirsches’ petition for certification. It is expected to decide in 2013 whether to support Judge Skillman’s strict construction of the rule that only parties to an arbitration agreement may be forced to arbitrate, or whether intertwinement is a legitimate exception to that long established rule.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Can You Be Forced to Arbitrate Even If You Didn’t Sign the Underlying Arbitration Agreement?
Author: Joel N. Kreizman
To the surprise of many New York and New Jersey businesses, the answer may be yes.
Based on the theory of “intertwinement,” at least one New Jersey court has held that parties who did not sign the underlying arbitration agreement can be forced to arbitrate their claims.
In an April 23, 2011, unreported Opinion, the Appellate Division held that Michael and Robyn Hirsch were required to submit their claims against Amper Financial Services (“Amper”) to a Financial Industry Regulatory Agency (“FINRA”) arbitration panel even though the Hirsches had no agreement to arbitrate disputes between themselves and Amper. The ruling appeared to be contrary to the generally accepted principle that arbitration is a creature of contract and parties may be required to arbitrate only with persons with whom they have contracted to arbitrate their disputes.
The Honorable Anthony Parillo, writing for a two judge appellate panel, held that intertwinement is an exception to that general rule. While the Hirsches didn’t have an agreement to arbitrate with Amper, they did have an agreement to arbitrate disputes with Securities America, Inc. (“SAI”). SAI was the brokerage firm through which securities recommended to the Hirsches by Amper were purchased.
When the Hirsches, who lost their entire investment to a Ponzi scheme, sought to arbitrate their claims against SAI and to litigate against Amper, first the Trial Court and then the Appellate Division held that the claims were so intertwined that the arbitration agreement with SAI required the Hirsches to submit their claims against Amper to FINRA as well.
A different appellate panel had rejected “intertwinement” as an exception to the arbitration is strictly a creature of contract rule. In that case, Agrisani v. Financial Technology Ventures, 402 N.J. Super. 138 (App. Div. 2008) the Honorable Stephen Skillman wrote:
If the cases relied upon by FT Ventures actually held that a party to a contract containing an arbitration clause could be forced to arbitrate a claim against a nonsignatory to the contract simply because his claim was “inextricably intertwined” with that contract, those cases could not be reconciled with the fundamental principle that a party can be forced to arbitrate only those issues it has specifically agreed to submit to arbitration.
The Supreme Court has now accepted the Hirsches’ petition for certification. It is expected to decide in 2013 whether to support Judge Skillman’s strict construction of the rule that only parties to an arbitration agreement may be forced to arbitrate, or whether intertwinement is a legitimate exception to that long established rule.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
