Slow news day….
An excerpt:
The case originally involved two written contracts between Plaintiff and Vision, entitled “Vision Gaming & Technology, Inc. Distribution Agreement for Oklahoma” and “Vision Gaming & Technology Inc. Participation Agreement.” The Distribution Agreement appointed Plaintiff as Vision’s exclusive distributor for the sale of its gaming products in Oklahoma. The Participation Agreement authorized Plaintiff to place gaming devices owned by Vision in gaming facilities operated by Native American tribes in Oklahoma and to obtain contracts with the tribes that would provide for Plaintiff and Vision to share a percentage of the revenue generated by the operation of those devices. The Distribution Agreement contained an arbitration clause, which has now been enforced by a federal district court in Georgia. Plaintiff, Pierson and Vision were ordered “to submit to arbitration all issues arising under the Distribution Agreement.” See Vision Gaming & Tech., Inc. v. Tribal Consortium, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-2267-RWS, Order at 13 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 8, 2007). Thus, all claims relating to the Distribution Agreement are subject to arbitration and cannot be litigated in this case. The federal court in Georgia ruled, however, that “issues arising under the Participation Agreement are not subject to arbitration.” Id.
Bottom line — plaintiff loses.
Turtle Talk 