OPINION OF THE COURT
In this аction, plaintiffs All Metro Health Care Services, Inc. (AMHC) and the 1818 Mezzanine Fund II, L.P. (1818 Fund) seek damages for defendants’ alleged fraud in connection with the sale to AMHC of All Metro Aids, Inc. (All Metro Aids), a corporation engaged in the business of home health care. Plaintiffs AMHC and 1818 Fund move to discontinue the action so they can proceed with arbitration of their claims against defendant Scott R. Mixer, and to compel arbitration of all of Mixer’s claims against plaintiffs.
The following facts are not disputed: AMHC purchased All Metro Aids with financing provided by 1818 Fund. Defendant Glenn Edwards was thе sole shareholder of All Metro Aids at the time of sale. Defendant Mixer was a senior manager of All Metro Aids who, with others, organized AMHC in order to effectuate a management buy-out and to purchase the stock of All Metro Aids. (Mixer counterclaims 1i 12.) Mixer was a major shareholder of AMHC (id.) and its president. Edwards and All Metro Aids entered into a stock purchase agreement with AMHC, dated October 9, 2003. The agreement was executed by
“Mixer represents that he does not have actual knowledge as of the Execution Date of any fact which causes or which could cause a breach of any of Seller’s representations and warranties contained in Section 26, except as to Section 26.1 [regarding stock оwnership]. Mixer will give prompt written notice to the Seller prior to the Effective Date of any fact of which Mixer has actual knowledge which causes or which could cause a breach of any of Seller’s representations and warranties contained in Section 26.”
Section 26 sets forth representations made by Edwards and All Metro Aids “[a]s a material inducement to Buyer to enter into this Stock Purchase Agreement.” These representations included representations that All Metro Aids’ financial statement was correct in all material respects and fairly presented its financial condition, and that All Metro Aids was not insolvent. (§§ 26.15, 26.21.)
Section 47 of the agreement provided for arbitration, in pertinent part, as follows: “Any dispute between or among the parties or any dispute arising from or under this Stock Purchase Agreement or relating to its subject matter or enforcement shall be submitted to binding arbitration by the American Arbitration Association . . . .” The stock purchase agreement was modified, in respects that are not here relevant, by modification agreement, made on December 29, 2005, which Mixer also signed as president of AMHC.
In August 2007, Edwards commenced an arbitration proceeding before the American Arbitration Association against AMHC for payments allegedly due under the stock purchase agreement. In September 2007, AMHC and 1818 Fund commenced an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey for a declaration that Edwards’ claims were subordinate to the claims of AMHC’s senior lenders. AMHC and 1818 Fund then sought a stay in Supreme Court, Nassau County, of Edwards’ arbitration pending determination of their New Jersey action. By order dated January 6, 2009, the New Jersey Superior Court granted sum
As a threshold matter, the court holds that this action is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 USC § 1 et seq.), which applies to any arbitration agreеment evidencing a transaction involving interstate commerce. (9 USC § 2.) The United States Supreme Court has “interpreted the term ‘involving commerce’ in the FAA as the functional equivalent of the more familiar term ‘affecting commerce’ — words of art that ordinarily signal the broadest рermissible exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power.” (Citizens Bank v Alafabco, Inc.,
It is well settled that “the FAA embodies a strong federal policy favoring arbitration,” and that, in accordance with this
It is further settled that a party will not be compelled to arbitrate absent an express agreement or clear intent to do so. (Deloitte Noraudit A/S v Deloitte Haskins & Sells, U.S.,
The courts have repeatedly held that a party may be bound by an unsigned аrbitration agreement under appropriate circumstances. Nonsignatories have thus been held bound by contractual arbitration provisions under “ordinary principles of contract and agency,” as where it is shown that the nonsignatory assumed the arbitration agreement, or was bound by the agreement under a veil-piercing/alter ego theory or by estoppel. (See e.g. Thomson-CSF, S.A. v American Arbitration Assn.,
Neither party cites any authority that involves similar facts and addresses whether a party may be compelled to arbitrate where, as here, it signs only one provision of а contract containing an arbitration provision. The general authorities on the arbitrability of claims against nonsignatories must therefore control this court’s determination of the issue. It is undisputed that the stock purchase agreement was made in order to effectuatе the management buy-out by which Mixer assumed the top executive position at AMHC and became a major stock owner of the company. On these facts, the court finds that Mixer directly benefitted from the agreement. Moreover, as noted above, Mixer signed section 27 in his individual capacity, representing that he had no knowledge of any fact that would cause a breach of the seller’s representations or warranties. This representation was made in connection with representations by Edwards that were made to induce AMHC’s entry into thе stock purchase agreement. (See agreement §§ 26, 27.) As signatory of the agreement on behalf of AMHC, Mixer had knowledge that the agreement contained an arbitration provision that indisputably covered disputes arising out of representations as to the financial positiоn of All Metro Aids. Under these circumstances, by agreeing to make the highly material representation in section 27 in his individual capacity, Mixer evidenced his intent to subject himself to the enforcement provision in the event of any dispute arising out of his representations. The court accordingly holds that Mixer agreed to arbitrate such dispute.
The remaining issue is whether plaintiffs waived the right to arbitrate by their participation in this litigation. In arguing that a waiver has occurred, defendant cites New York cases holding that a waiver will be found where the party’s degrеe of participation in the litigation is inconsistent with an assertion
Finally, the court holds that the issues to be arbitrated should be limited to plaintiffs’ claims against Mixer arising out of the stock purchase agreement, and that Mixer’s counterclaims are nonarbitrable. While there is substantial authority that inextricably bound claims should be heard in the same forum (see e.g. Young v Jaffe,
Although Mixer’s counterclaims are not properly referred to arbitration, the arbitration will likеly resolve many of the issues raised by the counterclaims, particularly those based on the representations made by Mixer and 1818 Fund prior to the closing. The nonarbitrable counterclaims should therefore be stayed pending completion of the arbitration. (See Cohen v Ark Asset Holdings,
It is accordingly hereby ordered that plaintiffs’ motion is granted to the following extent: It is ordered that plaintiffs are granted leave to discontinue this action with prejudice; and it is further ordered that plaintiffs’ claims against Mixer arising out of the stock purchase agreement are referred fоr arbitration; and it is further ordered that Mixer’s counterclaims in this action are severed and are stayed pending determination of the aforesaid arbitration.
Notes
Plaintiffs expressly contend that the FAA governs the stock purchase agreement. (Plaintiffs’ mem of law in support at 10.) Defеndant does not assert that the FAA is inapplicable but, as discussed infra at 868-869, correctly argues that courts in an FAA case generally apply state law to determine whether a contract providing for arbitration was formed. (See defendant’s mem of law in opposition аt 8.)
. In so holding, the court notes that Mixer argued that as a signatory of only one section and not of the agreement as a whole, he was not bound by the arbitration provision. Mixer noted that 1818 Fund was not a signatory of the agreement, but did not argue, or submit authority that, 1818 Fund is not entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary. (See defendant’s mem in opposition at 7 n 4.)
. It is noted that New York law and the FAA apply different standards of waiver. Under the FAA, a waiver will not be inferred without prejudice to the opposing party as a result of the delay. (See e.g. Leadertex, Inc. v Morganton Dyeing & Finishing Corp.,