In the case of KPMG LLP v. Robert Cocchi et al., 2011, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a lower court had erred in refusing to compel arbitration for some claims in a class action lawsuit against accounting firm KPMG. The plaintiffs were investors who lost money in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme and alleged that KPMG was negligent and committed malpractice by failing to uncover the fraud during audits. They sought damages from both KPMG US and its international umbrella organization, KPMG International Cooperative (KIC). While an agreement between the parties stipulated certain disputes should be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation, a Florida state court refused to enforce this clause on all counts because two of several claims were found not subject to it. However, upon appeal by defendants, SCOTUS reversed this decision stating courts must enforce arbitration agreements on a claim-by-claim basis if they are indeed arbitrable under said agreement - even when other claims might proceed in court.

The dissenting opinion in the KPMG LLP v. Robert Cocchi et al., 2011 case argued that the court should not have remanded the case back to state courts for further proceedings. The dissenters believed that there was no need for additional interpretation of arbitration agreements, as they were clear and unambiguous. They also disagreed with the majority's view that some claims could be arbitrated while others couldn't, arguing this approach would lead to inefficiency and potential inconsistencies in rulings. Furthermore, they contended that all disputes arising from or relating to an agreement should be subject to arbitration if such a clause is present in said agreement.