University of Alberta Faculty of Law Assistant Professor Tamar Meshel has published “GE Energy v. Outokumpu: Non-signatories Can Now Enforce International Commercial Arbitration Agreements on Equitable Estoppel Grounds,” Harvard Business Law Review Online, Forthcoming. In her scholarly work, Professor Meshel discusses a recent United States Supreme Court decision regarding whether a non-signatory is entitled to enforce an international commercial arbitration agreement can based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
Here is the abstract:
This essay comments on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, et al, rendered June 1, 2020. In this brief and unanimous decision, the Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit and resolved a question that has long been the subject of a Circuit split: Whether a non-signatory to an international commercial arbitration agreement can enforce it on the basis of the equitable estoppel doctrine. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Court brought the United States in line with international commercial arbitration practice. It also provided much-needed clarity and predictability in the enforcement of international arbitration agreements in the United States.
However, the Supreme Court’s narrow judgment left unresolved two related and equally contentious questions: First, whether international commercial arbitration agreements must be signed to be valid and enforceable in the United States, and second, how is the equitable estoppel doctrine to be formulated in this context and whether state or federal law governs its application. I examine these questions in light of the Court’s decision and its implications for non-signatories to international commercial arbitration agreements.
This and other journal articles written by Professor Meshel may be downloaded free of charge from the Social Science Research Network.
Photo by: Jon Tyson on Unsplash