Compelling Signatories To Arbitrate With Non-Signatories

In his International Arbitration column, John Fellas discusses non-signatories to arbitration agreements, highlighting the issue that U.S. courts hold that a non-signatory may rely upon an arbitration clause against a signatory, but not the other way around. No U.S. case has fully articulated the rationale for this theory or fully explained why these two situations should be treated differently.

March 25, 2022 at 12:00 PM

13 minute read

Alternative Dispute Resolution

John Fellas

This article is about non-signatories to arbitration agreements. The issue I address concerns a difference in the approach taken by U.S. courts when a non-signatory seeks to rely on an arbitration clause against a signatory versus when a signatory seeks to rely on an arbitration clause against a non-signatory. When it comes to one particular non-signatory theory—the "intertwined claims" estoppel theory (about which more below)—U.S. courts hold that a non-signatory may rely upon an arbitration clause against a signatory, but not the other way around.