Application To Enjoin Arbitration Denied, 30 Day Stay Granted

Posted: January 16, 2026 / Written by: Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt / Categories Arbitration, Preliminary Injunction, Stay

Application To Enjoin Arbitration Denied, 30 Day Stay Granted

On October 6, 2025, Justice Andrea Masley denied a preliminary injunction sought by plaintiff Nigel John Eccles, who sought to prevent defendants from proceeding with an arbitration they had commenced against him. The case is Eccles v. Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, Index No. 651223/2020.

Eccles had taken the lead in the case on behalf of more than 100 shareholders in non-party FanDuel Ltd. (“FDL”), who brought suit in 2020 against members of FDL’s board for breach of fiduciary duty, and against other defendants for aiding and abetting the breaches, in connection with the July 2018 merger of FDL and non-party Paddy Power Betfair PLC. In 2024, the New York Court of Appeals reversed an order of the Appellate Division, First Department that had dismissed the action, and restored plaintiffs’ fiduciary-breach-related claims.

Through its US subsidiary, FDL had entered into a Separation Agreement with Eccles in 2017, which prohibited Eccles from cooperating in any claims against defendants and called for arbitration of any disputes concerning its terms. In 2025, defendants commenced an arbitration against under the Separation Agreement, seeking i) to enforce the non-cooperation agreement, ii) an order directing Eccles to sever his claims from the action at bar; and iii) indemnification for any damages Eccles’ fellow plaintiffs might recover from them in the action at bar. Slip op., pp. 3-4.

Referring to defendants as “Claimants” (based on their status in the arbitration), Justice Masley denied Eccles’ application to enjoin the arbitration. Any questions concerning whether the arbitration should go forward were for the arbitrator to decide, and Claimants had not waived the arbitration clause by litigating in the case at bar because “the arbitration dispute and the dispute in this action differ: whether Eccles violated the Separation Agreement [at issue in the arbitration] versus whether plaintiffs were divested of their interests in FDL without compensation [at issue in the case at bar].” Id., p. 6. Moreover, the possibility of an adverse outcome in the arbitration “does not constitute irreparable harm; when Eccles agreed to arbitration in 2017, he agreed to the arbitrator determining damages without limitation on the amount an arbitrator could award.” Slip op., p. 9.

Because it would be highly disruptive to the case if Eccles, who had been the face of the litigation, were to cease cooperating with the other plaintiffs as the arbitration sought to require, Justice Masley stayed the action “for 30 days, allowing the parties and court to assess the arbitration schedule and its impact on this case and to allow plaintiffs time to regroup in response to Eccles’ decisions, if any.” Id., p. 10.

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning arbitration, injunctive relief or stays.