Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1048_8ok0.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

GE ENERGY POWER CONVERSION FRANCE SAS, 
CORP., FKA CONVERTEAM SAS v. OUTOKUMPU 
STAINLESS USA, LLC, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 18–1048.  Argued January 21, 2020—Decided June 1, 2020 

ThyssenKrupp  Stainless  USA,  LLC,  entered  into  three  contracts  with 
F. L.  Industries,  Inc.,  for  the  construction  of  cold  rolling  mills  at 
ThyssenKrupp’s steel manufacturing plant in Alabama.  Each contract 
contained a clause requiring arbitration of any contract dispute.  F. L. 
Industries  then  entered  into  a  subcontractor  agreement  with  peti-
tioner (GE Energy) for the provision of nine motors to power the cold 
rolling mills.  After the motors for the cold rolling mills allegedly failed, 
Outokumpu  Stainless  USA,  LLC  (which  acquired  ownership  of  the 
plant), and its insurers sued GE Energy in Alabama state court.  GE 
Energy removed the case to federal court under 9 U. S. C. §205.  It then 
moved  to  dismiss  and  compel  arbitration,  relying  on  the  arbitration 
clauses in the F. L. Industries and ThyssenKrupp contracts.  The Dis-
trict Court granted the motion, concluding that both Outokumpu and 
GE Energy were parties to the agreement.  The Eleventh Circuit re-
versed.  It concluded that the Convention on the Recognition and En-
forcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention or Con-
vention) allows enforcement of an arbitration agreement only by the 
parties that actually signed the agreement and that GE Energy was a 
nonsignatory.  It also held that allowing GE Energy to rely on state-
law equitable estoppel doctrines to enforce the arbitration agreement 
would conflict with the Convention’s signatory requirement.  

Held: The New York Convention does not conflict with domestic equita-
ble  estoppel  doctrines  that  permit  the  enforcement  of  arbitration 
agreements by nonsignatories.  Pp. 3–12. 

(a) Chapter  1 of  the  Federal  Arbitration  Act  (FAA)  does not  “alter