June 1, 2020
Decided June 1, 2020
GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, No. 18-1048
Today, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the New York Convention permits the use of state-law equitable estoppel doctrines to compel arbitration between parties that did not sign the arbitration agreement.
ThyssenKrupp entered into a series of contracts with F.L. Industries to buy three cold rolling mills for use in the manufacture of steel products. Each contract contained a clause calling for arbitration of all “disputes arising between both parties” to be arbitrated in Germany. The contracts defined “Parties” to include the “Buyer” (ThyssenKrupp) and “Seller” (F.L. Industries). They further defined “Seller” and “Parties” to include subcontractors.
F.L. Industries subcontracted with GE Energy to supply motors for the mills. The motors allegedly failed, and Outokumpu (who purchased the manufacturing plant from ThyssenKrupp) sued GE Energy in Alabama state court. After removing the case to federal court, GE Energy moved to compel arbitration in Germany under the arbitration agreement in the ThyssenKrupp-F.L. Industries contracts and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”). The district court compelled arbitration, ruling that the contracts were signed, written agreements between ThyssenKrupp and F.L. Industries and that GE Energy, as a subcontractor, was not excluded from the arbitration provision.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that because the New York Convention applied only to parties that actually sign the arbitration agreement the Convention precluded the use of equitable estoppel doctrines to compel arbitration among parties that did not sign the arbitration agreement.
Whether the New York Convention permits the use of equitable estoppel to compel arbitration between parties that did not actually sign the arbitration agreement.
Yes. The New York Convention does not preclude parties who did not sign an arbitration agreement from seeking to compel arbitration under state-law equitable estoppel doctrines.
“[T]he Convention requires courts to rely on domestic law to fill the gaps; it does not set out a comprehensive regime that displaces domestic law.”
Justice Thomas, writing for the unanimous Court
What It Means:
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice
|Allyson N. Ho
|Mark A. Perry
|Matthew D. McGill
Related Practices: International Arbitration and Enforcement
|Robert L. Weigel
© 2020 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Attorney Advertising: The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.