Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds

• A parcel tanker is an ocean-sailing vessel with many compartments to hold liquid cargos.
• Each liquid compartment in the tanker may be chartered to a customer.
• AnimalFeeds International Corp. = "AnimalFeeds" = supplier of raw feeds to animal feed producers = customer of tanker companies
• Vegoilvoy = the charter party used by AnimalFeeds
• Vegoilvoy chart party included an arbitration clause stipulating application in New York of the Federal Arbitration Act
• The arbitration clause didn't specifically mention arbitration of class-action claims
• "Stolt-Nielsen" = a shipping company = AnimalFeeds shipping company = owner of tanker ships = plaintiff
• In 2003, the Justice Department found that Stolt-Nielsen participated in a price-fixing conspiracy

• AnimalFeeds brought a class-action lawsuit in federal court against Stolt-Nielsen.
• Next, AnimalFeeds demanded class arbitration.
• With the consent of the 2 opposing sides, a panel concluded that the arbitration clause in the contract didn't prohibit class arbitration
• AnimalFeeds won at the arbitration panel = the demand of AnimalFeeds for class arbitration is valid
• Afterwards, a federal district court vacated the decision of the arbitration panel = AnimalFeeds lost
• The 2nd Circuit reversed the federal district court in New York = AnimalFeeds won

Does the Federal Arbitration Act compel a party who never agreed to class arbitration to submit to class arbitration?

No. The Federal Arbitration Act doesn't require a party who never agreed to class arbitration to submit to class arbitration.

Reversed

Samuel Alito: Arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.