Opinion ID: 621899
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Stolt-Nielsen Decision.

Text: In Stolt-Nielsen, petitioners were shipping companies. See 130 S.Ct. at 1764. The charter partya maritime contract governing the relationship between the partiesprovided, in relevant part Arbitration. Any dispute arising from the making, performance or termination of this Charter Party shall be settled in New York, Owner and Charterer each appointing an arbitrator, who shall be a merchant, broker or individual experienced in the shipping business; the two thus chosen, if they cannot agree, shall nominate a third arbitrator who shall be an Admiralty lawyer. Such arbitration shall be conducted in conformity with the provisions and procedure of the United States Arbitration Act [i.e., the FAA], and a judgment of the Court shall be entered upon any award made by said arbitrator. Id. at 1765. Respondent AnimalFeeds, along with other charterers, sued Stolt-Nielsen, alleging price fixing, and eventually served a demand for class arbitration. Id. The parties agreed to have an arbitration panel decide the threshold issue of whether the charter party permitted class arbitration, and stipulated before the panel that the arbitration clause was silent on the issue of class arbitration. Id. at 1765-66. The panel concluded that the expert testimony offered did not demonstrate an inten[t] to preclude class arbitration. Id. (alteration in original). After finding that the issue was controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444, 123 S.Ct. 2402, 156 L.Ed.2d 414, (2003), the panel concluded Bazzle and policy considerations dictated finding the clause permitted class arbitration. Id. The Supreme Court found that the arbitration panel imposed its own policy choice, rather than identifying and applying a rule of decision derived from the FAA or either maritime or New York law, and thus exceeded its powers. 130 S.Ct. at 1770. Tackling the issue itself, the Court found the FAA controlling, id. at 1773, and reaffirmed that arbitration is simply a matter of contract between the parties. Id. at 1774 (alterations omitted). The Court concluded that a party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so. Id. at 1775 (emphasis in the original).