Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY: Class action procedures in Sirius XM Radio case will not be scrutinized by Supreme Court
    • ADVERTISING NEWS: FTC workshop to inquire into relationship between online content, advertising
    • ADVERTISING—S.D. Cal.: Final approval of settlement revised in class action against Kellogg’s cereal advertising
    • ADVERTISING—S.D. Ohio: Class claims dismissed against P&G over advertising for cold products containing Vitamin C
    • AGENCY NEWS: Latanya Sweeney and Andrea Matwyshyn join FTC, will advise agency on privacy issues
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Canada Competition Bureau head urges “culture of compliance”
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Direct purchasers allege mesquite charcoal price fixing conspiracy
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Ramirez addresses competitive implications of patent assertion entities at ABA section event in Washington, D.C.
    • ANTITRUST—N.D. Ill.: Sole lead counsel appointed in dairy product direct purchaser litigation
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: Payment processor settles FTC charges over allegedly unauthorized transactions
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION NEWS: Supreme Court does not disturb stay of liquor distribution dispute
    • LAW FIRM NEWS: Former DG Competition Chief Economist rejoins Charles River Associates
    • PRIVACY—E.D. N.Y.: Privacy claims fail over Google’s alleged disclosure of private email information
    • PRIVACY—W.D. Wash.: TCPA did not preempt Washington state Do Not Call claims
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION NEWS: Supreme Court does not disturb stay of liquor distribution dispute, (Nov 18, 2013)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Casellas Alcover & Burgos P.S.C. | McConnell Valdes LLC
    Organizations Mentioned:Bacardi International Ltd. | V. Suarez & Co., Inc.

    The U.S. Supreme Court will not review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston staying proceedings brought by Bacardi International Limited (BIL) to confirm an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act against a liquor sub-distrib ...

    The U.S. Supreme Court will not review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston staying proceedings brought by Bacardi International Limited (BIL) to confirm an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act against a liquor sub-distributor, V. Suarez & Co., Inc. (VSC) (Bacardi International Ltd. v. V. Suarez & Co., Inc., Dkt. 13-320).

    In its petition for certiorari, filed September 9, BIL asked the High Court whether “the First Circuit was free to surrender subject-matter jurisdiction over a motion to confirm a ‘final and binding’ arbitral award brought under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §9, by staying the federal proceedings in deference to a parallel state court action, without taking into account the Act’s policies requiring piecemeal litigation to enforce the arbitration agreement.”

    The dispute arose out of a decision not to renew a subdistribution agreement between BIL subsidiary Bacardi Caribbean Corporation (BCC) and VSC. The agreement had granted VSC the exclusive right to sell and sub-distribute certain Bacardi-branded products in Puerto Rico. BIL consented to the agreement, as did BC, another Bacardi subsidiary. The agreement included grounds to permit termination for “just cause,” limitations on damages, and provisions for dispute resolution requiring arbitration.

    BIL argued in its petition that the First Circuit’s sua sponte order to stay proceedings disregarded Supreme Court precedent, mandating that the Federal Arbitration Act’s policies be weighed against abstention. It also contended that the First Circuit’s order to stay proceedings disregarded the parties’ consent to confirmation under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which conflicted with the Supreme Court’s precedents mandating rigorous enforcement of arbitration agreements.

    Attorneys: Ricardo F. Casellas (Casellas Alcover & Burgos P.S.C.) for Bacardi International Ltd. Francisco G. Bruno (McConnell Valdes LLC) for V. Suarez & Co., Inc.

    Companies: Bacardi International Ltd.; V. Suarez & Co., Inc.

    News: FranchisingDistribution

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use