Skip to main content

Gilbert A. Samberg


[email protected]



Gil is a litigator with extensive experience in complex international and domestic commercial disputes. Much of his practice is focused on international arbitration and other cross-border alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings. Gil serves companies in diverse sectors, including financial services, capital equipment design and manufacturing, political risk and credit insurance, commodities trading, engineering, and construction.  He also draws on his science background to serve companies in the biotechnology and chemicals sectors as well as other technology-based companies.


  • University of Wisconsin (JD)
  • University of Wisconsin (PhD)
  • University of Michigan (BS)


  • Representation of a Bermuda-based credit insurance company in connection with U.S. financial company’s lease-sale of helicopters to a Mexican company.
  • Defense of a US financial company in a lender liability suit by a Latin American manufacturer
  • Representation of a US financial company with respect to its claim on defaulted promissory notes against a Mexican steel manufacturer
  • Representation of a US commodities trader in an arbitration in London against an Indian vendee of nonprecious metals
  • Representation of a US commodities trader in an arbitration in Zurich, in respect to its claim regarding losses of nonprecious metals at a Macedonian tolling facility
  • Representation of a Swiss general contractor against a US technology subcontractor, in relation to a subcontract in connection with the construction of an infrastructure project in Yakutsk, the Russian Federation
  • Representation of an Austrian bank in litigation with an Argentinean bank concerning interbank deposits in the context of Argentina’s moratorium on external debt repayments
  • Representation of an Italian manufacturing company in an arbitration in Singapore, in respect to a claim against an Indonesian counter-party
  • Representation of diverse financial companies in arbitration and litigation proceedings concerning losses related to a Eurobond default
  • Representation of a credit insurance company and the negotiation of recoveries for the benefit of several European and US-based insureds with regard to potential losses in Turkey, Mexico, and other countries

Recent Insights

News & Press


The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) has promulgated a new set of Administered Arbitration Rules (“AAR”), effective November 1, 2018.  Among those rules are Articles 27-30 concerning the HKIAC’s powers to join additional parties in an arbitration, to consolidate arbitrations, to consolidate related claims in a single arbitration, and to coordinate related unconsolidated arbitral proceedings.  Those powers, which the HKIAC can exercise without the consents of the parties to any bilateral arbitration agreement, are not trivial; among other things, they arguably institutionalize pathways to collective or opt-in class arbitration proceedings.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has joined five other Circuits in determining, unremarkably, that class or collective arbitrability is a gateway question that is presumptively for the court to decide.  It then apparently ignored the issue of whether the parties delegated such arbitrability questions to an arbitrator.  See Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corp., No. 17-3609 (7th Cir. Oct. 22, 2018).  (Yet we may infer from the Court’s decision that incorporation by reference in an arbitration agreement of the Employment Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association does not constitute a clear and unmistakable manifestation of the parties’ intent to delegate the class/collective arbitrability question to an arbitrator.)
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held recently that it could not compel arbitration demanded by a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement when the New York Convention applied.  See Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC v. Converteam SAS (c/k/a GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp., No. 17-10944, 2018 WL 4122807 (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2018).
The U.S. Supreme Court has pointed out consistently in recent years that the relatively new construct of “class arbitration” is very different from your uncle’s classic bilateral arbitration. (“Class arbitration” signifies the utilization of a class action protocol (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) in an arbitration proceeding.) One might expect, therefore, that the adjudication of issues concerning the one would differ from the adjudication of the same issues concerning the other. Delegation of the arbitrability question is one such issue. Have the lower federal courts adopted such a view? Count the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals as another that has decided against it, and that whether the “class arbitrability” issue has been delegated to an arbitrator should be adjudicated using the same criteria as are applied to that issue with respect to bilateral arbitration.
In our sister blog, ADR: Advice from the Trenches, Gil Samberg explains the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the recent Epic Systemscase, that the “collective action” provision of the FLSA does not render a collective action waiver in an arbitration agreement unenforceable.
When the Supreme Court ruled recently that the “concerted activities” provision of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) did not make a contractual waiver of “class arbitration” unenforceable, it provided an extensive analysis that included comments regarding the interaction of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), the NLRA, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
After granting a motion to compel arbitration, should a court operating under the FAA stay or dismiss the pending judicial proceeding?  While the federal circuit courts are split on the question, the better rule seems to be that after granting a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, FAA §4 (9 U.S.C. §4), the court should stay the judicial proceeding pending the arbitration.
Who may determine whether “class arbitration” has been authorized by the parties to an arbitration agreement — a court, an arbitrator, either? Considering the nature of “class arbitration,” is this a special case of the arbitrability delegation issue, or is this issue sui generis?
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “class arbitration” may be permitted if an arbitration agreement authorizes it, Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 684 (2010), and that state contract law governs the interpretation of the parties’ arbitration agreement. A proposal: that an agreement to permit class arbitration must be “clear and unmistakable” to be enforceable.
“Gateway” arbitration issues, including the validity, enforceability, and scope of an arbitration agreement, are presumptively to be decided by a court, rather than by an arbitrator.

News & Press

Gil Samberg, a New York-based Mintz litigator, authored this Law360 "Expert Analysis" column discussing new rules from the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center which provide noteworthy institutional means for joinder of parties and consolidation of proceedings so as to effectuate collective or opt-in class arbitration proceedings.

New York Litigation Member Gil Samberg authored this Law360 column taking an in-depth look at whether the Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in JPay v. Kobel correctly addressed the issue of “clear and unmistakable” consent when it comes to the delegation of class arbitrability. Gil further addresses another issue relating to the decision with respect to many class arbitration-related matters
This Law360 Expert Analysis column, authored by New York Litigation Member Gil Samberg, notes that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide next term whether an arbitration agreement that says nothing about class arbitration can be interpreted to constitute consent by the parties. Gil’s column states that it is currently unclear if the Supreme Court will specify who can actually decide that question.
This feature article discusses U.S. Supreme Court nominee D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh's track record on international arbitration. New York Litigation Member Gil Samberg is among those sources quoted in the piece.
Validity, enforceability and scope of an arbitration agreement are "gateway" arbitration issues that can be delegated to an arbitrator if the agreement clearly and unmistakably indicates the parties’ intention to do so. New York Litigation Member Gil Samberg authored this “Expert Analysis” column discussing the questions that arise when one of the named arbitration parties is not a signatory of the agreement.
This column is authored by New York Litigation Member Gil Samberg. In the piece Gil discusses why parties should consider incentivizing an adversary with a “sealed settlement offer,” which could eventually make a settlement offeree pay a heavy price in such costs for miscalculation or intransigence.
Gil Samberg, a Member in Mintz’s New York office, published an article in Law360 on February 15th on the recent efforts made by Second Circuit courts to begin grappling with issues surrounding the viability of class arbitration in U.S. jurisprudence, something the Supreme Court has yet to do.
Gil Samberg, a Member of the Litigation Practice in Mintz’s New York office, authored an article on how the “hot-tubbing” of experts – “a procedure for the contemporaneous presentation of competing expert oral testimony” – is now a fairly standard consideration in arbitrations.
Gil Samberg, a Member of the Litigation Practice in Mintz’s New York office, authored a Law360 article in conjunction with a recent series of questions asking whether class arbitration is ultimately viable in U.S. court proceedings.
Gil Samberg, a Member of the Litigation Practice in Mintz’s New York office, authored a Law360 article as part of a series asking whether ‘class arbitration’ is ultimately viable, an issue that has yet to be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
This article notes that it's common for consumer and employment contracts to have arbitration clauses that require any dispute to be resolved in binding arbitration. It further discusses how not all such clauses explicitly ban arbitration on a classwide basis.
Mintz Litigation Member Gilbert Samberg authors this column asking the question if “class arbitration” is viable given the essential nature of arbitration, or is it an oxymoron.
New York Litigation Member Gil Samberg discusses the applications and ramifications of 28 USC § 1782 after a decision in Second Circuit Courts, holding that the London Maritime Arbitration Association is a “foreign tribunal” within that law.
Gil Samberg, a Mintz Member, authored an article in Corporate Counsel discussing the complexity of acquiring expert evidence in arbitration disputes. Gil addresses how one must plan accordingly for that expense and difficulty.
Gil Samberg, a Member of Mintz's Litigation Practice, published an article in Law360 providing “practical advice regarding factors to be accommodated in fashioning multistep alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provisions.”
Gil Samberg, a Member of the Mintz Litigation Practice, authored an article in Law360 discussing “hot-tubbing” – a procedure for the joint presentation of expert testimony. Gil weighs in on the pros and cons of this procedure in international arbitrations.