InterGen N.V. v. Grina
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
344 F.3d 134 (2003)
InterGen N.V. (InterGen) (plaintiff) accepted a bid from ALSTOM Power N.V. (ALSTOM Power) (defendant) to manufacture turbines for two power-plant projects. Rocksavage Power Company (RPC) was responsible for one project, and Coryton Energy Company (CEC) was responsible for the other. An InterGen subsidiary owned RPC and CEC. InterGen chose the bid after consulting with its corporate cousin, Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel Power). Bechtel Limited, a subsidiary of Bechtel Power, agreed to purchase turbines from ALSTOM Power’s subsidiary, ALSTOM Power Generation (APG) (defendant), for RPC. RPC entered into certain contracts with APG, and CEC entered into a contract with APG. Each contract contained arbitration clauses that required the parties to resolve disputes through arbitration in London. InterGen did not sign these contracts. InterGen sued ALSTOM Power, APG, and ALSTOM Power’s negotiating agent, Eric Grina (collectively, ALSTOM) (defendants) alleging that the turbines were defective. The lawsuit did not claim breach of contract or seek to enforce any contractual right. The case was removed to the federal district court that had personal jurisdiction over the parties. ALSTOM moved to compel arbitration. InterGen opposed the motion, arguing that it did not agree to arbitrate. The district court denied the motions as premature. InterGen filed an amended complaint, retracting previous allegations that InterGen was the active architect behind the projects and not a passive investor. After discovery, ALSTOM renewed the motion to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that the court had no authority to compel proceedings in London. ALSTOM appealed, arguing that (1) InterGen was estopped from avoiding arbitration, (2) InterGen was a third-party beneficiary of the contracts, (3) InterGen was an agent of Bechtel Limited, a signatory to one of the contracts, and (4) InterGen was the alter ego of RPC and CEC, the signatories to the other contracts.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Selya, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 710,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.