Supplemental Benefit Committee v. Navistar, Inc., 781 F.3d 820

Under a Shy v. Navistar consent decree, Navistar must fund a Supplemental Plan via profit-sharing contributions.
The Profit Sharing Plan defines contributions through an accounting-based formula requiring Navistar to report financial data to the SBC.
Section 8 of the Plan requires the SBC to dispute Navistar’s disclosed information or calculations through a binding accountant arbitrator.
The SBC alleged Navistar manipulated corporate structure and accounting to reduce profit-sharing obligations, raising four categories of challenges to Navistar’s reporting.
The district court held the SBC’s claims were within arbitration, but found Navistar had not waived its arbitration right; it remanded for arbitration.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit majority vacated and remanded to compel arbitration; the dissent argued §8.4 does not reach the SBC’s substantive non-reporting disputes and that Navistar waived arbitration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the SBC dispute within §8.4 arbitration scope?	SBC disputes Navistar’s information and calculations.	Disputes involve Navistar’s substantive manipulation of structure, not merely information.	Arbitration applicable; disputes about information and calculations fall within §8.4
Does FAA apply to a narrow arbitration clause in this plan?	Arbitration clause is valid and subject to FAA despite narrow scope.	Narrow scope should limit arbitration, not expand it.	FAA applies to the narrow arbitration clause
Did Navistar waive its right to arbitrate the SBC claims?	Navistar timely invoked arbitration; no waiver occurred.	Navistar’s pre- and post-litigation conduct showed inconsistent reliance and prejudice.	Navistar did not waive arbitration
Are operational classification disputes still subject to arbitration under an information-focused clause?	Classification disputes are tied to information and should be arbitrated.	Classification disputes may require contract interpretation beyond information.	Arbitration may apply where disputes closely relate to information provided
Should the district court’s waiver analysis be preserved or reversed on appeal?	District court correctly found no waiver and should be affirmed.	Waiver should be found due to Navistar’s conduct.	Appeal vacated; remanded for arbitration; waiver analysis is disputed

Fit Tech, Inc. v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 374 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (arbitration policy favors resolving accounting-issues via accountant arbitration)
Nestle Waters North America, Inc. v. Bollman, 505 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 2007) (strong federal policy favoring arbitration resolves doubts in favor of arbitration)
JPD Inc. v. Chronimed Holdings, Inc., 539 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2008) (considers arbitration for disputes over earnings calculations and related issues)
PureWorks, Inc. v. Unique Software Solutions, Inc., 554 Fed.Appx. 376 (6th Cir. 2014) (arbitration for operational/disputes affecting the earn-out report)
Highlands Wellmont Health Network, Inc. v. John Deere Health Plan, Inc., 350 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2003) (delay or posturing can weigh against waiver, depending on context)
Johnson Associates, Corp. v. HL Operating Corp., 680 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2012) (waiver found where arbitration not raised until litigation progressed)
Bratt Enterprises, Inc. v. Noble Int’l Ltd., 338 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2003) (arbitration policy favors arbitration when clause is broad and ambiguous)
Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (arbitration policy vs. court involvement; enforceability of arbitration agreements)