FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ULY 14, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ P U B L I S H ] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 07- 1028 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 80 96 6- CV-DTKH INTERNATIONAL U

NDERW RITERS AG & LIBERTY RE-INS URANCE CORPORATION, S.A., Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r-Defe nd an t-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us TRIPLE I: INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS, INC., De fendant-Counterclaim ant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ ( Ju ly 1 4, 200 8) Before BIRC H and FAY , C ircuit Judg es, and HIN KL E, * District Judge. HINKLE , D istrict Judg e:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ *Honora ble Robert L . Hinkle, United States District Chief Judge f or the Nor

thern District of F lorida, sitting by

desig nation.2

T his appe al r ai se s th e iss ue of the arb itr ab ili ty

of spe ci fi c cl ai m s ari sin g fr om ac om m er ci al ve nture gon e ba d. T he obj ec t of the ve nture w as the construction of a c em ent plant in Nigeria. T he parties to this appeal are the ow ner who proposed to buildthe plant and the su rety who agre ed to issu e a f

inancial guarantee bond as collateral for a loan that would fund th e proj ect. T he owner as se rt s th e pr opos ed

loan w as asham . T he ow ne r sue d th e sur ety ( an d othe rs ) fo r fr au d and o n othe r the or ie s. T he sur ety m ove d to c om

pe l arb itr at ionnot

ba se d on an y arb itr at ionc lause in its pr inc ipa l a gr ee m en t w iththe ow ne r — the a gr ee m en t said noth ing abou t arbitration — but ins tead based on an arbitration clause in an es cr owa gr ee m en t thr oughw hic h th e bond doc um en ts w er e to b e de liv er ed and the s u r e t y’ s f e e w a s t o b e p a i d . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd e n i e dth e mo t i o n . We a f f i rm. I. F acts Appe lle e T ri ple I : I nte rn at ion al I nve stm en ts, I nc . ( “ T ri ple I ”) w ish ed to build a ce m ent plant in Nigeria. It needed a $520 m illion loan. F inancial adviso rs purportedlyfound a lender (Japan V enture Fund Group (“ Japan Venture” )) and an is su er o f a fi na nc ia l g ua ran te e b on d (app el la nt Int ern at io na l Un de rwri te rs AG & Lib ert y Re-I ns ur an ce Co rp or at io n, S.A. (“ In te rn at io na l” )). Tr iple I and International agreed that T riple I w ouldpay International a fe e of $10 . 4 m ill ionf

or iss uin g th e bond

and tha t I nte rn at ion al w oul d r ef und al l bu t $200 of the f ee if the bon d w as not

use d. I nte rn at ion al c onf irm ed the a gr ee m en t i n3

its written bond comm itm ent. T here w as no agreem ent to arbitrate. T ri ple I and I nte rn at ion al e ve ntu al ly a gr ee d th at

the $10 . 4 m ill ionf

ee w oul d be pa y ab le ha lf i n a dv an ce an d h al f aft er Tri pl e I’s rec ei pt of t he lo an pro ceed s. T he part ie s in te nde d to c los e the tr an sa ct ion s r em ote ly , not in pe rs on. T o f

ac ili ta te that approach, they

engaged an escrowagent (W . E . F ielding and Associates (“ W EF ”)) and entered a written escrowagree m ent. A m ong th e term s wer e that In te rn at ion al w oul d te nde r to W E F the $5. 2 m ill ionpay ab le to In te rn at ion al in advanc e, that I nte rn at ion al w oul d te nde r to W E F the appr opr ia te bon d do cum en ts, an d t ha t —

up on co nf

irmatio n t ha t J ap an Vent ur e h adfun de d t he lo an — WE F would disb urse the $5.2 m illion to International. T he escrowagree m ent included a clause c alling for arbitration of “ any dispu te arising pursuant to or in any way re la te d to thi s A gr ee m en t or the tr an sa ct ion s c ont em

plate d he re by . ” E sc ro w Agr eem en t, R.1 .1.8 ¶1 2. T ri ple I te nde re d th e $5. 2 m ill ionto W E F. I nte rn at ion al te nde re d th e bond doc um en ts t o W E F. Ja

pan V en tur e ne ve r funde d th e loan, but W E F dis bur se d th e $5.2 m illion to International. T riple I dem anded return of the fe e, but International ba lke d. T ri ple I thu s w as out $5. 2 m ill ion . In te rn at ion al f

ile d alaw sui t i n w hic h it

de nie d th at

T ri ple I w as e nti tle d to a refund of the entire $5. 2 m illion but also so ught to “ interplead” that am ount for a determ ination by

the court of the parties’ respective r ights . Tr iple I4

co unt er cl ai m ed . I n du e co ur se I nte rn at ion al vol unt ar ily dis m iss ed

it s c om pla int , and Triple I twice am ended its coun terclaim . In the second am ended co un te rcl ai m , Trip le I as se rte d t ha t t he who le de al was a sh am fro m th e o ut se t. Tr iple I nam ed 11 count ercla im defendants, including Internation al. Tr iple I soug ht r ec ove ry

a ga ins t a ll of

the c ount er cl ai m

de fe ndants f

or f ra ud and unde r the Ra ck et ee r In fl ue nc ed

and C or ru pt O rg an iz at ion s A ct . T ri ple I a lso sou ght re co ve ry a ga ins t I nte rn at ion al f

or br ea chof

the c ontra ct

f or iss uanc e of

the financial guarantee bond and on a related theory of prom issory

estoppel. T riple I expr es sly did not se ek r ec ove ry a ga ins t I nte rn at ion al or

the oth er c ount er cl ai m de fe ndants f

or br ea chof

the e sc ro wa gr ee m en t: By thi s S ec ond A m en de d C ount er cl ai m , [ T ri ple I ] he re by m ak es no c la im

a ga ins t I nte rn at ion al or

the A ddi tio na l C ount er cl ai m D ef en dants f or br ea chof

the E sc ro wA gr ee m en t or ba se d up on the es cr owtr an sa ct ionc ont em plate d inthe E sc ro wA gr ee m en t. Se co nd A m en de d C ount er cl ai m , R. 1. 32. 7 ¶ 35. In te rn at ion al m ove d to c om pe l arb itr at ionba se d onthe arb itr at ionc lause in the escrowagree m ent. T he district court denied the m otion . International filed thi s a ppe al . II. St andard of Re view W e rev ie w de nov o a dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n onw he the r a dis put e is co ve redby an arb it rat io n a gr eem en t. Se e, e . g. , E m plo ye rs I ns. of W ausa u v . B rig

ht5

Metal Specialties, Inc. , 251 F. 3d 13 16, 1321 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). III. Me rits A di sp ut e o rd in ari ly is ar bi tra bl e if th e p art ie s h av e ag reed to arb it rat e it . As w e ha ve sa id:

Abse nt s om e vio la tio n of pub lic pol ic y , af

ed er al c ourt m

ust refe r to arbitration any

controversies covered by the provisio ns of an arb it rat io n c la us e. Ch astain v . R obi nson -H um phre y Co . , 957 F . 2d 851, 854 (11t h Cir. 1992 ). Whether a party has agreed to ar

bitrate an iss ue is a m atte r of

c ontra ct int er pr et at ion : “ [A ] party

c an not be required to subm it to arbitration any dispu te w hich he has not agree d so to su bm it.” U

nit ed Ste el wo rk er s of A m er ic a v . W

arr ior & G ulf Na vi gat ion Co . , 363 U . S. 574 , 582 , 80 S . Ct . 134 7, 4 L . E d. 2d 1 409 (1960). Te le co m I tal ia, SpA v . W

hol es ale T

el ec om Co rp. , 248 F.3d 110 9, 1114 (11th Cir. 20 01 ). The ca no ns of c on st ru ct io n ru n i n fa vo r of arb it rat io n. Se e, e.g ., Mos es H. Co ne M em ’l H osp. v . M er cu ryCo nstr. Co rp. , 460 U . S. 1, 24- 25, 103 S . Ct . 927 , 74 L. Ed. 2d 765 (1983) (“ any doub ts concerning the scop e of ar bitrable issues shou ld be resolved in favor of arbitration”). Tr iple I and International entered an a greem ent under which International was to is su e a fi na nc ia l g ua ran te e b on d a nd Trip le I was t o p ay Int ern at io na l a f

ee. A cc or din g to the se co nd am en de d c ount er cl ai m , I nte rn at ion al ne ve r int en de d to pe rf orm ; the e nti re und er

takin g w as asham . T he pr inc ipa l su bst an tiv e iss ue be tw ee n T ri ple I and I nte rn at ion al is w he the r that i s so . If T ri ple I and I nte rn at ion al ha d in cl ude d an arb itr at ionc lause in the6

ag re em en t f

or iss uanc e of

the bon d —

r equir ing , f

or e xa m ple , arb itr at ionof dis put es ari sin g f

ro m the a gr ee m en t, or

r el at ed to the a gr ee m en t —

it w oul d be cl ear that T ri ple I ’ s c la im s a ga ins t I nte rn at ion al w oul d be arb itr ab le . B ut the ag re em en t f

or iss uanc e of

the bon d di d no t i nc lud e anarb itr at ionpr ovi sio n. T he failure to include any

ref erence to arbitration as part of the parties’ prim ary a g r e e me n ti s s ub s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f th e i r i n t e n tn o tt o r e qu i r e ar

b i t r a t i o n o f

c l a i ms like thos e now at issue. T ri ple I and I nte rn at ion al w er e, how ev er , part ie s to the se parate e sc ro w ag re em en t. T he e sc ro wa gr ee m en t i nc lud ed an arb itr at ionc lause . S til l, the c lause did not pur port t o r equir e ar

bitratio n of

dis put es that w er e se parate f ro m and unr el at ed to the e sc ro warr an ge m en t. I nst ea d, a s on e m igh t e xpe ct f ro m the co nte xt, the c lause sa id the part ie s w oul d arb itr at e “ an y dis put e ar isi ng p ur suant t o or in an y w ay r el at ed to thi s A gr ee m en t [ that i s, the e sc ro wa gr ee m en t] or the transactions contem

plated hereby .” T he e sc ro wa gr ee m en t a ddr es se d th e narr owiss ue of the m ec hanic s f

or ex ch an gin g do cum en ts and f unds a s part

of the br oa de r ag re em en t f

or iss uanc e of a fi nanc ia l gu ar an te e bond . I n th is c ont ex t, adis put e “ ar isi ng p ur suant t o or in an y w ay r el at ed to” the e sc ro wa gr ee m en t i nc lud es adis put e ove r the te rm s or perform ance of the e scrow a greem ent. Adispu te arising pursuant to or in any way re la te d to “ the tr an sa ct ion s c ont em plate d” by

the e sc ro wa gr ee m en t i nc lud es aBe fore filing the second a mended c ounterc laim, Triple I asser ted a c laim ag ainst WEF 1 fo r b re a c h o f t

he e sc ro w a g re e me nt. WEF mov e d to c omp e l arb itr atio n o f t hat c la im, and

Tr ipl e Iimmediately

ag ree d to arbitrate . International now say s that this judi cially estops Triple I

from asser ting that its claims ag ainst International are not arbitrable . But ther e is nothing inc onsistent about Triple I ’s positions. To the contrar y , Triple I ’s position that the claim ag ainst WEF was arb itr a ble but th e c la ims a g a ins t Inte rn atio na l are no t is a fu lly c on sis te nt —

ind e e d c or

re c t — rea ding of

the contra cts at issue. 7 dis put e ove r the te rm s or

pe rf orm an ce of

the e sc ro wtr an sa ct ion s — the te nde ri ng of the docum ents and funds and their later delivery . Thus when T riple I m ade a cl ai m a ga ins t W E F fo r fa ilure to pe rf orm a s r equir ed

by the e sc ro wa gr ee m en t, W E F w as e nti tle d to c om pe l arb itr at ion , a s I nte rn at ion al r ea dil y a dm itt ed . 1 Bu t the sam e is n ot tru e of T ri ple I ’ s c la im s a ga ins t I nte rn at ion al f or f ra ud an dfo r b re ac h o f t h e a g re emen tfo r i s s u an ce o f a fi n an ci al g u ar an t ee b o n d . We as su m e, fo r pu rp os es of t hi s ap pe al , th atth e fra ud an d b reac h o ccu rred as a ll eg ed . Se e Te le co m I

tal ia, SpA v . W

hol es ale T

elec om Co rp. , 248 F . 3d 1 109, 111 1 ( 11th Ci r. 200 1) ( as sum ing that the f ac ts a lle ge d inthe r el ev an t pl ea din g w er e tr ue f or purpos es of an appeal over arbitrability ). T riple I’ s allegation is th at International’ s undertaking wa s a sham from the outset. A t the outset, and indeed whe n In te rn at io na l i ss ue d i ts bo nd co m m it m en t, t he re was no esc ro w agr eem en t. T he part ie s e nte re d th e es cr owa gr ee m en t on ly la te r, a s am ea

ns o f ex ch an gin g th e de liv er ab le s to w hic h th ey ha d se parate ly

a gr ee d. T he “ tr an sa ct ion s contem plated” by

the escrowagree m ent did no t include an already -underway fraudulent schem e that the perpetrators und oubt edly would have been m ore than8

w ill ing to carr

y out w ith out any e sc ro wtr an sa ct iona t a ll. Inarg uin g th e co ntr ar

y , I nte rn at ion al e m

pha siz es that the arb itr at ionc lause refe rs to “ tra ns act io ns ” — p lu ral . But th e ref eren ce i s n ot jus t t o “ tra ns act io ns ,” but to “ tr an sa ct ion s c ont em

plate d he re by , ” that i s, tr an sa ct ion s c ont em plate d by the escrowagree m ent. T he transactions that the escrow a greem ent contem plated w er e the e sc ro wtr an sa ct ion s — the te nde ri ng o f doc um en ts, the te nde ri ng o f funds, and the ir

la te r de liv er

y . T he re w er e se ve ra l e sc ro wtr an sa ct ion s, and the use of the plural thus was proper. Reading the arbitration clause to apply only to claim s arising from

or related to the e sc ro wa gr ee m en t or the e sc ro wtr an sa ct ion s a cc or ds n ot o nly w iththe language but also m akes sense in context. T he prim ary undertaking betwee n T ri ple I and I nte rn at ion al w as f or iss uanc e of

af inanc ia l gu ar an te e bond . T he pa rti es di d n ot ag ree t o a rb it rat e d is pu te s ar is in g fr om or r el at edto th attra ns act io n. A f inanc ia l gu ar an te e bond

of c our se c oul d have be eniss ue d w ith out any e sc ro w ar range m en t a t a ll. T ha t the part ie s c hose to carr y out the m ai n a gr ee m en t by m eans o f ane sc ro warr an ge m en t — and tha t the e sc ro wa gr ee m en t c al le d f or ar bitratio n of

dis put es ari sin g f

ro m or r el at ed to the e sc ro wa gr ee m en t and e sc ro w transactions — hardly

evinces an intent to arbitrate disput es arising from or related to the m ai n a gr ee m en t. T o ho ld o the rw ise w oul d be to le t the ta il w ag the dog . In te rn at ion al not es , tho ugh, that an arb itr at ionc lause in ana gr ee m en t9

som et im es c anr equir e ar bitratio n of

adis put e ar isi ng n ot f

ro m the a gr ee m en t i tse lf but f ro m anothe r sour ce , inc lud ing anothe r ag re em en t. T ha t i s c or re ct . B ut this oc curs onl y

w he n th e ar

bitratio n c lause a

ppl ie s to the dis put e at

iss ue . T ha t, in tur n, or din ar ily

is so o nly

w he n th e dog is w ag gin g th e ta il. Whe n an arb itr at ion cl au se in one a gr ee m en t do es not appl y to cl ai m s ari sin g f

ro m or r el at ed to a di ffer en t ag reem en t, we h av e n ot req ui redarb it rat io n. As confirm ation of this analy sis, w e address a c ase on which International re lie s and the n th re e de ci sio ns i n w hic h w e did not re qui re arb itr at ion . In te rn at ion al r el ie s on Blinco v. Gree n Tree Servicing LLC , 400 F . 3d 1 308 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) . T ha t c as e inv olv ed ar es ide nti al not e an d m ortga ge . T he husb and sign ed a note that included a clause requiring arbitration of all dispu tes

“ ar isi ng f ro m or r el at ing to thi s c ontra ct

or the r el at ion shi ps whic h r es ult f ro m thi s contract. ” Blinco , 40 0 F .3dat 1 31 0. Th e h us ba nd an d wi fe s ig ne d a m or tg ag e. The husband and wife brought a law suit agains t a successor to the note’ s pay ee al le gi ng st atut ory

vi ol at io ns rel at in g t o t he ser vi ci ng of t he no te an d m or tg ag e. N ot s ur pr isi ngl y , w e he ld the dis put e co ve re d by the arb itr at ionc lause ( an d, se parate ly , w e he ld the c lause bin din g no t on ly on the hus band b ut a lso on the w if e an d th e suc ce sso r to the or igi na l pay ee ). I n ho ldi ng the c lause appl ic ab le to thi s di sput e, w e sa id: [I] t is difficult to un derstand how [the defe ndant] c ouldbe a ser vicer10

if the re w er e no N ote , and m or e im portantl y , how[ the de fe ndant] could face statutory

servicer liabilityif there we re no N ote to service. Blinco , 400 F . 3d at 13 11. In Blinco , the c entral docum ent in the parties’ relationship — th e note — inc lud ed an arb itr at ionc lause . I n th e ca se a t bar, in co ntr as t, the c en tr al doc um en t in the r el at ion shi p be tw ee n T ri ple I and I nte rn at ion al — the c om m itm en t f or iss uanc e of

af inanc ia l gu ar an te e bond

— d id not

in cl ud e an arb it rat io n c la us e. T his is the dif

fe re nc e be tw ee n th e ta il an d th e dog. Mo re ove r, the arb itr at ion cl au se in Blinco applied not only to disp utes arising from

or relating to the note, but also to dispu tes arising from or relating to the re lat ion shi ps t hat resul te d fr om the not e. T he re is no s im ilar langua ge in the arb itr at ionc lause a t i ssu e in the c as e at bar, and i n any

e ve nt the r el at ion shi p be tw ee n T ri ple I and I nte rn at ion al did not re su lt fr om the e sc ro wa gr ee m en t. F ina lly , in Blinco it w as “ dif fi cu lt to unde rs tand” howthe de fe ndant c oul d f ac e statut or

y se rv ic er li ab ili ty in the ab se nc e of

anot e to s er

vic e. I n th e ca se a t bar, in co ntr as t, it is ea sy to unde rs tand how T riple I could have been defra uded without an escrowagree m ent; Tr iple I could sim ply have agree d to pay

the fee in another m anner. A nd it is easy to see how International could have breached its agreem ent to issu e a bond without an es cr owa gr ee m en t; In te rn at ion al c oul d si m ply have f ai le d to iss ue the bon d. Mo reo ve r, Blinco did

not e sta bli sh any r ule that any

dis put e that c oul d no t11

ha ve ari se n bu t f

or an a gr ee m en t ne ce ssari ly “ ar ise s f ro m or r el at es to” the agreem ent within the m eaning of an arbitration clause. W e disapproved anysuch ru le in Se aboa rd C

oast L ine R . R . Co . v . T

rai le r T rai n C o. , 690 F . 2d 1 343 (1 1th Cir. 1982 ). T railer Tr ain licensed certain ra il cars to Se aboard and later, for tax re as ons, le as ed

som e of the sam e cars to Se ab oard . T he li ce nse a gr ee m en t in cl ud eda cl au se req ui rin g a rb it rat io n o f an y di sp ut e ari si ng un de r th e ag reem en t. The le ase agre em ent, howe ver, did no t have an arbitration clause. Sea board m oved to com

pel arbitration of its claim that Tr ailer T rain failed to deliver doc um en ts r equir ed

by the le as e ag re em en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e m oti on, and we a ffirm ed. W e said that the license and lease, thoug h related, we re

“ se parate and d ist inc t, ” an d th at the te rm s of

one c oul d no t c ontro l a

br ea chof

the ot he r. Se aboa rd , 690 F . 2d at 13 52. W e not ed the f ed er al pol ic y

f av or ing ar bitratio n bu t sa id the pol ic y “ cannot se rv e to s tr et chac ontra ct be y ond the sc ope originallyintended bythe parties.” Id . A nd w e quot ed w ithappr ova l the S ec ond Ci rc uit ’ s st at em en t i n Ne cc hi v . Ne cc hi S ew ing M ac hin e Sal es Co rp. , 348 F . 2d 693, 698 ( 2d C ir . 196 5) , that a dis put e doe s no t “ ar ise out of or in co nne ct ion with” a contract j ust because the disp ute would not h ave ar isen if the contract “ had never existed.” Se aboa rd , 69 0 F .2dat 1 35 1. T his sam e re as oni ng i s f

ull y appl ic ab le in the c as e at

bar. T he bon d co m m itm en t and e sc ro wa gr ee m en t a t i ssu e he re , li ke the li ce nse and l ea se a t i ssu e12

in Se aboa rd , w e r e “s e p a r a t e an dd i s t i n c t . ” A n d th e qu o t a t i o n f

r o m Ne cc hiput s to re st I nte rn at ion al ’ s c ont en tio n th at T ri ple I ’ s c la im s m

ust be arb itr ab le be ca

use they could no t have arisen had the escrowagree m ent not exist ed. Moreover, here, unl ike in Ne cc hi , T ri ple I ’ s c la im s co uld have ari se n e ve n inthe abse nc e of any es cr owa gr ee m en t. T w o othe r ca se s inw hic h w e did not r equir e ar

bitratio n a lso de se rv e m en tio n. I n Klayv . A ll D ef en dant s , 389 F . 3d 1 191 (1 1thCi r. 200 4) , som e of the plaintiff phy sicians had entered contracts w ith the defendant health m aintenance organizations th at included broad arbitration clauses. T he phy sicians rendered services covere d by

the contracts (as to w hich the phy sicians wer e theref ore am ong th e H MO’ s “ participating prov iders”) but also rendered other ser vices that we re not covered by

the contracts (as to w hich the phy sicians wer e theref ore

“ nonp ar tic ipatin g pr ovi de rs ”) . W e he ld tha t the phy sic ians w er e not r equir ed to arbitrate their

claim s based on services rendered outside the contracts, w hich wer e re fe rr ed to as “ non- par cl ai m s. ” I n r ea ch ing that r es ult , w e re lie d onthe c ont ex t an d onthe na tur e of

the c ontra ct s and f

ound e ve n th e br oa de st l an gua ge in an y of the c ontra ct s in suf

fi ci en t t o r equir e ar

bitratio n: Be ca use w e fi nd tha t e ve n th e br oa de st a rb itr at ionc lause s c oul d no t co m pe l arb itr at ionof

non -p ar c la im s inthi s in stanc e, w e ne ed not pars e thr oughthe langua ge use d ine ac h H MO ’ s arb itr at ion ag re em en ts.13

Klay , 389 F . 3d at 12 01 n . 11. I n th e ca se a t bar, a s in Klay , the par ties agreed to an ar bitratio n c lause a s part

of ac ontra ct , but

that c ontra ct

ha d ali m ite d sc ope , and i n context the arbitration clause was not broad enough to extend to th e claim s at issue, w hich arose independent ly of the contract w ith an arbitration clause. Si m ilarl y , in Te le co m I

tal ia, SpA v . W

hol es ale T

el ec om Co rp. , 248 F . 3d 1109 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) , the re w as an or al a gr ee m en t be tw ee n T el ec om I ta lia , S pA (“ Te lecom

Italia”) and Wholesale Tele com Corporation (“ W TC ”), under which T el ec om I ta lia w oul d us e its sw itc h inRo m e to r out e ca lls f or W T C t o any

pla ce in the w or ld. S om e of

the c al ls o ri gin at ed

in the U nit ed

S ta te s. T el ec om

I ta lia did n o th av e l eg al au t h o ri t y t o tra n s p o rt ca l l s i n th e U n i t ed St at es . AtTe l ec o m It al i a’s ur gin g, W T C a gr ee d to le as e ci rc uit s f ro m aT el ec om

I ta lia sub sid iary , T el em ed ia In te rn at ion al U . S. A . , I nc . ( “ T MI ”) , in or de r to g et c al ls f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s to th e swi tc h i n R om e. T he or al a gr ee m en t be tw ee n W T C and T el ec om I ta lia inc lud ed no p ro vis ion fo r ar bitratio n. T he w ri tte n le as e be tw ee n W T C and T MI , in co ntr as t, inc lud ed a cl au se req ui rin g a rb it rat io n o f an y di sp ut e “ ari si ng ou t o f orrel at in g t o” th e le as e. T he r el at ion shi ps w en t so ur . T el ec om I ta lia and W T C f

ile d c la im s a ga ins t one anothe r. W T C f

ile d ac la im

a ga ins t T MI a sse rt ing tor tio us i nte rf

er en ce w ith the oral agree m ent betwee n W TC and Te lecom Italia. T MI m oved to com pel ar bitratio n, a sse rt ing that the tor tio us i nte rf

er en ce c la im

aro se f ro m or r el at ed to14

the le as e; the le as e w as , a ft er a ll, the onl y

r ea son fo r T MI ’ s in vol ve m en t i n th e en ti re u nd ert ak in g. Bu t t he di st ric t co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n, an d we a ffi rm ed . A ft er r ev ie w ing our

le ad ing c as es a ddr es sin g c lause s r eq uir ing the part ie s to an ag reem en t t o a rb it rat e d is pu te s “ ari si ng fro m ” o r “ rel at edto ” th e ag reem en t, we sa id: It

is poss ibl e to h ar

m oni ze the r es ult s inthe se f our c as es by focusing o n whether the tort or breach in question was an im m ediate, foresee able result of the perf orm ance of c ontractual duties. Disputes that are not related — with at lea st som e directness — to perfor m ance of dut ie s sp ec if

ie d by the c ontra ct

do n ot c ount

a s di sput es “ ar isi ng out of ” the c ontra ct , and are not c ove re d by

the standard

arb itr at ion cl au se . . . . H ow ev er , w he re the dis put e oc curs a s af ai rl y dir ec t r es ult of the perform ance of c ontractual duties . . . , then the disp ute can fa ir ly be sa id t o ari se out

of or r el at e to the c ontra ct

in que sti on, and ar bitratio n is r equir ed . Te le co m I tal ia , 248 F. 3d at 111 6. Apply ing th is standard, w e concluded that T MI ’ s a lle ge d to rt iou s in te rf er en ce w iththe W T C- T el ec om I ta lia or al a gr ee m en t did not ari se f ro m or r el at e to the W T C- T MI le as e, de spi te the ove rl ap be tw ee n th e contracts. In suppo rt of this conclusio n, w e said that TMI could have interfered with the W TC -T elecom

Italia a greem ent “ even if T MI had no contractual relationship with W TC .” Id . Inthe c as e at

bar, a s in Te le co m I

tal ia , the re is anobv iou s r el at ion shi p be tw ee n th e tw o c ontra ct s a t i ssu e. B ut h er e, a s in Te le co m I tal ia , I nternational could have breached its bon d com m itm ent and defrauded T riple I even if there had15

be enno e sc ro wa gr ee m en t a t a ll. T ri ple I ’ s c la im s are not r el at ed — w itha t l ea st so m e d ire ct ne ss — t o t he pe rfo rm an ce o f du ti es sp eci fie d i n t he esc ro w agr eem en t. T h e e s c r o wa g r e e me n t ’s ar b i t r a t i o n c l au s e d o e s n o tap p l y t o T r i p l e I ’s c l a i ms ag ai nst I nte rn at ion al . IV . C on cl us ion The principal agr eem ent betwee n Tr iple I and International wa s for issuance of af inanc ia l gu ar an te e bond

in ex ch an ge f

or af ee . T he a gr ee m en t di d no t include an arbitration provi sion. Tr iple I, International, and an escr ow agent w ere part ie s to ase parate e sc ro wa gr ee m en t tha t i nc lud ed an arb itr at ionc lause . B ut the te rm s and l ogi ca l i m

port of that c lause did

not e xte nd t o di sput es ari sin g no t f ro m any failure to per form

the escrowagree m ent but on ly from the failure to per form — and f ra udul en t e nti ce m en t i nto — the a gr ee m en t f or iss uanc e of

the bon d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r de ny ing the m oti on t o c om pe l arb itr at ionof

thi s di sput e is AFFIRMED.