Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1048_8ok0.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2 

GE ENERGY POWER CONVERSION FRANCE SAS 
v. OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA, LLC 
Opinion of the Court 

GE Energy agreed to design, manufacture, and supply mo-
tors for the cold rolling mills.  Between 2011 and 2012, GE 
Energy delivered nine motors to the Alabama plant for in-
stallation.  Soon thereafter, respondent Outokumpu Stain-
less  USA,  LLC,  acquired  ownership  of  the  plant  from
ThyssenKrupp.

According to Outokumpu, GE Energy’s motors failed by
the summer of 2015, resulting in substantial damages.  In 
2016, Outokumpu and its insurers filed suit against GE En-
ergy in Alabama state court.  GE Energy removed the case 
to federal court under 9 U. S. C. §205, which authorizes the 
removal of an action from state to federal court if the action 
“relates to an arbitration agreement . . . falling under the 
Convention  [on  the  Recognition  and  Enforcement  of  For-
eign Arbitral Awards].”  GE Energy then moved to dismiss 
and compel arbitration, relying on the arbitration clauses 
in  the  contracts  between  F. L.  Industries,  Inc.,  and 
ThyssenKrupp.

The  District  Court  granted  GE  Energy’s  motion  to  dis-
miss and compel arbitration with Outokumpu and Sompo 
Japan Insurance Company of America.  Outokumpu Stain-
less  USA  LLC  v.  Converteam  SAS,  2017  WL  401951  (SD
Ala., Jan. 30, 2017).1  The court held that GE Energy qual-
ified as a party under the arbitration clauses because the 
contracts defined the terms “Seller” and “Parties” to include 
subcontractors.    Id.,  at  *4.  Because  the  court  concluded 
that both Outokumpu and GE Energy were parties to the 
agreements, it declined to address GE Energy’s argument 
that the agreement was enforceable under equitable estop-
pel.  Id., at *1, n. 1. 

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s order 
compelling arbitration.  Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC v. 

—————— 

1 The District Court later granted GE Energy’s motion to compel arbi-
tration with additional insurers.  Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC v. Con-
verteam SAS, 2017 WL 480716 (SD Ala., Feb. 3, 2017).