Law Center Search Results

The MCLA filed amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court at both the petition and merits stages supporting the enforceability of international arbitration agreements. The case involved the cross-border implications of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which established a national policy favoring arbitration by placing arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts. Manufacturers regularly rely on arbitration agreements to ensure predictability and reliability in resolving international trade and investment disputes. The plaintiff in the case sued GE Energy, a subcontractor, over a dispute regarding the construction of a steel plant in Alabama and sought to create a loophole to avoid arbitration, arguing that GE was not a signatory to the main contracts which contained the operative arbitration clauses. In turn, GE argued that it was entitled to enforce the arbitration agreements under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The district court granted GE’s motion to compel arbitration, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that under international law, an arbitration agreement can be enforced only by the parties that actually signed the agreement. The NAM’s briefs argued that manufacturers need certainty that international arbitration agreements—just like domestic arbitration agreements— can be enforced through basic principles of contract law. And on June 1, 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed, holding that domestic contract law allows non-signatories to an arbitration agreement to arbitrate disputes arising under that agreement.