Non Party To Arbitration Agreement
Posted on December 13, 2020
In February 2017, Eisai filed an arbitration action against PharmaBio pursuant to the dispute settlement clause of its cooperation agreement. IQVIA was not named as a party to the arbitration. Eisai and PharmaBio chose an arbitration tribunal on their own and went to arbitrate. However, in January 2018, IQVIA was involved in the trial as a non-partisan witness after Eisai served a series of subpoenas. Following the arbitration panel`s insistence, Eisai subsequently moved to officially join IQVIA as a party and filed an application for an arbitration decision against IQVIA, pursuant to the dispute settlement clause of the collaboration agreement. In GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC, 590 U.S. – (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court has resolved a long-standing critical issue for international trade disputes in the decision as to whether a non-contractor of an international arbitration agreement can enforce this arbitration agreement in U.S. courts under the Convention on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards (the “New York Convention”). In a unanimous decision by Justice Thomas, the court stated that the New York Convention – as it did in the United States through Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.C s. 201, s.201, s.201 , allows non-signatories of international arbitration agreements to impose arbitration procedures on the basis of cheap national doctrines.
Decisions in English have already been commented on the blog, here and here. This contribution presents an analysis of the French legal perspective on the main contentious issues, i.e. the provision of the law applicable to the arbitration agreement and the extension of an arbitration agreement to a third party.1) A French commentary on the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal can be found here. I. The arbitration agreement recommends inclusion in contracts (agreements) as a compromise clause or separate arbitration agreement: second, the court concluded that the participation theory also did not apply to IQVIA. This theory stems from LA CPLR 7503 (b), which provides that “a party that has not participated in an arbitration . may apply for stay arbitration on the grounds that a valid agreement has not been reached.  The court stated that a participation may exist if a party “agrees in the affirmative” to be cited in the arbitration proceeding or when a party “files a notice of appearance, chooses the arbitrator and accepts arbitration.”  However, IQVIA, whose participation was limited to that of a non-partisan witness, was not considered a circumstance. The Court held that IQVIA`s mere “respect for subpoenas as a non-party to arbitration does not turn it into a participant.”  The compromise clause is mandatory on the basis of surrender, succession or freedom of decision: no surprises there. However, in certain circumstances, the Tribunal may extend the compromise clause to a party other than a signatory to the compromise clause, particularly if that party has commercial ties to the original signatory. In addition to the Dow Chemical arbitration procedure I mentioned above (see  and  above), I found that the concept of a single economic unit in the international arbitration community had very little force, especially outside of judicial matters (for example. B if a company within the group was part of the group for the purposes of the jurisdiction). I found it particularly useful to summarize the tribunal in the arbitration of the investment contract of the CME Czech Republic BV/The Czech Republic (Final Award, from 14 March 2003 to point 436): third parties who are outside an arbitration agreement, but who are involved in the underlying issues in an arbitration or who are allegedly responsible, can have a significant influence on the conduct of an arbitration proceeding.