United States / 02 July 1985 / U.S. Supreme Court / Mitsubishi Motors Corp v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth / 3-1569
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. Supreme Court |
| Date | 02 July 1985 |
| Parties | Mitsubishi Motors Corp v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth |
| Case number | 3-1569 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(2)(b) |
| Source | 473 U.S. 614 |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | A dispute arose between Mitsubishi, a Japanese corporation, and Soler Chrysler, a Puerto Rican company, concerning a distribution contract. Mitsubishi brought suit in a United States federal district court to compel arbitration in Japan, relying on the distribution contract. Soler Chrysler resisted arbitration on the grounds that (i) its counterclaims were based on a Sherman Antitrust Act violation, and (ii) the claims could not be disposed of in arbitration. The District Court ruled that the antitrust claims were arbitrable, and the Circuit Court reversed. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s decision and compelled arbitration. The question presented to the Supreme Court was whether claims arising out of the Sherman Antitrust Act were arbitrable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA) or the NYC. The Court found that they were. In doing so, the Court reasoned that “concerns for international comity, respect for the capacities of foreign and transnational tribunals, and sensitivity to the need of the international commercial system for predictability in the resolution of disputes” required that the Court compel arbitration. The Court further based its decision on the fact that the Arbitral Tribunal was competent to hear, and had agreed to consider, the antitrust claims. Finally, the Court held that national courts of the United States would have the opportunity at the enforcement stage, pursuant to Article V(2)(b) NYC, to ensure that the legitimate interest in the antitrust issues had been addressed. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Pending Adobe Acrobat PDF |
