skip to Main Content

Non-Party To The Arbitration Agreement

In 1994, the Fifth Circuit decided that a non-signatory to an international treaty with an arbitral provision had decided that that provision was provided for in the Sphere Drake Ins agreement. PLC v. Marine Towing, Inc., 16 F.3d 666, 669 (5th Cir. 1994). The Fifth Circle examined the language of Article II, Section 2, of the Convention and concluded that the term “signed by the parties” changed the concept of “arbitration agreement” but not that of “arbitration clause in a contract”. As a result, the Fifth Circuit upheld a District Court ruling that a party could enforce the arbitration provision in an unsigned insurance policy that stated, “Since this is an arbitration clause in a contract, the qualifications applicable to arbitration agreements do not apply. A signature is therefore not necessary. Id. In the only decision of the Russian Court on whether a court had jurisdiction over a parent company of a non-signatory entity on the basis of the part of an arbitration agreement, the Russian Supreme Court of Arbitration decided that the court did not have jurisdiction (Moscow Government v. S+T Handelsgellschaft. А40-41781/13). However, this case opposed the doctrine of piercing the company`s veil, which, in the opinion of the Russian court, cannot be used in this context. `Any disputes, controversies or claims relating to the constitution of a legal person [the name of a legal person as used in the Charter or any other governing document must be indicated] the management or participation of which, including disputes between the participants [shareholders, partners, members – the term must be chosen according to the organisational and legal form of a legal person] and the legal form The person himself, disputes involving persons who are or have been members of the management and control bodies of the legal person, as well as disputes concerning the claims of the participants in the context of the legal person`s relations with third parties are settled by arbitration before the International Arbitral Tribunal of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, in accordance with its applicable rules and rules.

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, T.I.A.S. No. 6997 (“Convention”) governs the enforcement of international arbitral awards between the parties to the Convention. In the United States, the implementing law of the Convention is Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) 9 U.S.C§ 201 et seq. (“Chapter 2”). A party wishing to impose arbitration proceedings under Chapter 2 must prove the existence and validity of a “written agreement within the meaning of the convention”. Z.B Balen v.

Holland Am. Line Inc., 583 F.3d 647, 654-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Article II, section 1, of the Convention provides that each State Party “recognizes” a “written arrangement” to arbitrate a particular dispute. Article II, Section 2, defines the term “written agreement” as “an arbitration clause in a contract or arbitration agreement signed by the parties or contained in an exchange of letters or telegram”. Our assessment shows that it was a mixed bag across the spectrum, with no clear trend emerging. In Duro Felguera, S.A. v Gangavaram Port Ltd.9, the fact concerned several contracts concluded by and between Gangavaram Port Ltd (hereinafter GPL) and a Spanish undertaking, as well as FGI, the subsidiary of the Spanish undertaking. GPL argued that a composite reference to arbitration should be made for all companies, based on the ratio in chloro controls (above). . . .

Back To Top