Holding that the fact that the party resisting arbitration could not rely for that purpose on the separate corporate existence of a number of Enron affiliates that it had referred to collectively in a prior complaint as the "Enron Group"
Holding that non-signatory local affiliate, who used a trade name pursuant to an agreement that it ratified which contained an arbitration clause, was estopped from relying on its nonsignatory status to avoid arbitrating under the agreement
In Ace American Insurance Company v. Huntsman Corporation, 255 F.R.D. 179, 206 (S.D. Tex. 2008), this court noted several ways in which a nonsignatory might receive direct benefits from an agreement, "such as relying on the signatories' performance of the contract containing the arbitration clause,... asserting that monetary compensation is owed under the contract with the arbitration clause,... and receiving monetary compensation flowing from obligations under the contract with the arbitration clause."
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 5120 (N.Y. 2012) Cited 14 times
Concluding that question of timeliness "must be resolved by an arbitrator under [the act's] principles" where choice of law clause provided only that "the Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws and decisions of the State of New York," and "[did] not include the critical enforcement language"