Client Alerts & Insights
Delaware Proposing New Rapid Arbitration Act
March 27, 2015
Authored By:
The Delaware General Assembly proposed legislation to provide business entities with the ability to resolve business disputes in a quick and efficient manner through voluntary arbitration: the Delaware Rapid Arbitration Act (Chapter 58, Title 10 of the Delaware Code). This proposed Act requires that at least one of the parties involved be either organized in Delaware or have its principal place of business in Delaware. Further, this process is available only to business entities; no party to the arbitration can be a consumer. The agreement to arbitrate the dispute must provide for the dispute to be governed by the laws of the State of Delaware and expressly reference the “Delaware Rapid Arbitration Act.”
The key focus of all parts of this proposed Act is speedy, efficient resolutions of disputes.
- This proposed Act requires resolution of arbitrated matters in no more than 120 days, although by unanimous consent of all parties to the arbitration, an extension can be granted of no more than 60 days. The Act reduces the arbitrator’s fees for failing to issue an award within the Act’s timetables.
- The Act allows the parties to select the arbitrator, although if there is no provision for appointment of an arbitrator or if the selected arbitrator cannot serve and the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the Court of Chancery must appoint an arbitrator within 30 days of petition.
- This Act avoids some of the delays common to arbitration by vesting exclusive jurisdiction to determine scope of arbitration in the arbitrator.
- If there is a challenge to the arbitrator’s decision, the Act provides for the appeal to be brought directly to the Delaware Supreme Court, rather than the current multi-layer of judicial review.
The Act protects the privacy of arbitration proceedings unless a party appeals the matter to the Delaware Supreme Court, in which case, all rulings are public.
The Delaware Rapid Arbitration Act may have significant beneficial consequences in situations where resolution is needed of a dispute and the parties have an ongoing business relationship which could be adversely affected by engaging in protracted dispute resolutions.
We will follow the legislative process of this Act. Please contact one of the attorneys listed below or any of the attorneys in the Corporate & Securities Practice Group at Benesch to discuss its status and benefits.
Megan L. Mehalko | mmehalko@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4487
Latest News
U.S. Trade Fraud Task Force Surpasses $1 Billion in Recoveries, Signaling Heightened Customs Enforcement
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new inter-agency Trade Fraud Task Force (“Task Force”), designed to “aggressively pursue enforcement actions against any parties who seek to evade tariffs and other duties” and those who attempt to import prohibited goods following the DOJ’s identification of trade and customs fraud as a priority for prosecution.
Major Shift in Federal Labor Board’s Position on Restrictive Covenants
Non-compete agreements are no longer considered presumptively illegal under federal labor law. On June 26, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released advice memoranda signaling this dramatic change in how the federal government views non-compete agreements in the workplace. This is welcome news for employers who use non-competes and similar restrictive covenants to protect their businesses.
Course of Performance as Contract Amendment or Waiver: When Business Practices Overrides Paper Terms
Imagine you are a leading manufacturing company, and you purchase a critical widget from a supplier. You have a carefully negotiated contract in place—one that spells out specific pricing, delivery timelines, and product specifications for those widgets.
California AG’s Carbon Health Settlement Raises the Stakes for MSO-PC Structures and Continuity Planning in California
The California Attorney General’s June 2026 settlement with Carbon Health marks the first-of-its kind resolution of an enforcement action directly targeting an MSO-PC structure under California’s corporate practice of medicine (“CPOM”) doctrine.