In its decision on the fallow action of the KFG, the Paris Court of Appeal accepted the same reasoning and stated: “The compromise clause is legally independent of the underlying contract in which it is incorporated, either directly or by reference, and its existence and validity are interpreted subject to the mandatory rules of French law and international public order. , without the need to refer to a national law. [paragraph 25] The Court first concluded that it had the power to decide whether IQVIA was bound by the dispute settlement clause of the cooperation agreement. Although the courts generally “the question of the ability of arbitrator to . . . Adjudicator,” where, as here, the arbitration agreement “specifically contains by reference to the AAA rules” and “uses the language referring all disputes to arbitration,” the Tribunal refused to refer the matter to arbitrators because IQVIA was “not a signatory” to the cooperation agreement and, moreover, it was not entitled to participate in the selection of arbitrators under that agreement.  The Court held that IQVIA`s obligation to refer the issue of arbiter to an arbitral tribunal that had “played no role in the selection” would amount to “an intolerable deprivation of IQVIA`s rights with due process”.  10.5. The Doctrine Group has also been used in cases where there is a narrow group structure, with strong organizational and financial ties, to constitute a single economic entity or a single economic reality.
In such a situation, the signatories and non-signatories were bound within the framework of the arbitration agreement. This is particularly the case when a company`s funds are used to financially support or restructure other members of the group.” (prominent mentions) In Jardine Lloyd Thompson Canada Inc. v. Western Oil Sands Inc., the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that arbitration agreements may compel third parties to present evidence in arbitration proceedings. (1) 67. This develops the principle that an unssigned party could be the subject of arbitration proceedings, provided that these transactions were made with a group of companies and that the parties clearly intend to engage both the signatories and the non-signatory parties. In other words, “the intention of the parties” is a very important feature that must be defined before the scope of the arbitration procedure can be qualified as a signatory and for the non-signatory parties. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, but did not consider whether other section 44 subsections could similarly authorize multi-party orders.