THE CCITIZENS BANK V ALAFABCO INC ET AL539 U S 52Word文件下载.docx

THE CCITIZENS BANK V ALAFABCO INC ET AL539 U S 52Word文件下载.docx

《THE CCITIZENS BANK V ALAFABCO INC ET AL539 U S 52Word文件下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《THE CCITIZENS BANK V ALAFABCO INC ET AL539 U S 52Word文件下载.docx（4页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

OnpetitionforwritofcertioraritotheSupremeCourtofAlabama

PerCuriam.

Thequestionpresentediswhethertheparties‘debt--restructuringagreementis“acontractevidencingatransactioninvolvingcommerce“withinthemeaningoftheFederalArbitrationAct（FAA）.9.U.S.C.*2.AsweconcludedinAllied--BruceTerminixCos.v.Dobson,513U.S.265（1995）,thereisasufficientnexuswithinterstatecommercetomakeenforceable.PursuanttotheFAA,anarbitrationprovisionincludedinthatagreement.

I.

PetitionerTheCitizensBank--anAlabamalendinginstitution--seekstocompelarbitrationofafinancialdisputewithrespondentsAlafabco,Inc.--anAlabamafabricationandconstructioncompany--anditsofficers.AccordingtoacomplaintfiledbyrespondentsinAlabamastatecourt,thedisputeamongthepartiesaroseoutofaseriesofcommercialloantransactionsmadeoveradecade--longcourseofbusinessdealings.In1986,thecomplaintalleges,thepartiesenteredintoaquasi---contractualrelationshipinwhichthebankagreedtoprovideoperatingcapitalnecessaryforAlabamatosecureandcompleteconstructioncontracts.Thatrelationshipbegantosourin1998,whenthebankallegedlyencouragedAlabamatobidonalargeconstructioncontractinCourtland,Alabama,butrefusedtoprovidethecapitalnecessarytocompletetheproject.Inordertocompensateforthebank’sallegedbreachoftheparties‘impliedagreement,AlafabcocompletedtheCourtlandprojectwithfundsthatwouldotherwisehavebeendedicatedtorepayingexistingobligationstothebank.Alafabcointurnbecamedelinguentinrepayingthoseexistingobligation

Ontwooccasions,thepartiesattemptedtoresolvetheoutstandingdebts.OnMay3,1999,Alafabcoandthebankexecuted“renewalnotes”inwhichallpreviousloanswererestructuredandredocumented（Ala.,Aug.30,2002）.Thedebt---restructuringarrangementincludedanarbitrationagreementcovering“alldisputes,claims,orcontroversies.“ThatagreementprovidedthattheFAA’sshallapplytoitsconstruction,interpretation,andenforcement.“Id.,at799.AlafabcodefaultedonitsobligationsundertherenewalnotesandsoughtbankruptcyprotectioninfederalcourtinSeptember1999.

InreturnforthedismissalofAlafabco’sbankruptcypetition,thebankagreedtorenegotiatetheoutstandingloansinaseconddebt---restructuringagreement.OnDecember10,1999,thepartiesexecutednewloandocumentsencompassingAlafabco‘sentireoutstandingdebt,approximately$430,000whichwassecuredbyamortgageoncommercialrealestateownedbytheindividualrespondents.ByAlafabco’saccountsreceivable,inventory,supplies,fixtures,machinery,andequipment,andbyamortgageonthehouseofoneoftheindividualrespondents.Id.,at800.Aspartoftheseconddebt---restructuringagreement,thepartiesexecutedanarbitrationagreementfunctionallyidenticaltothatofMay3,1999.

WithinayearoftheDecember1999debtrestructuring,AlafabcobroughtsuitintheCircuitCourtofLawrenceCounty,Alafabco,againstthebankanditsofficers.Alafabcoalleged,amongothercausesofaction,breachofcontract,fraud,breachoffiduciaryduties,intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress,andinterferencewithacontractualorbusinessrelationship.Essentially,thesuitallegedthatAlafabcodetrimentally“incurredmassivedebt’becausethebankhadunlawfullyrenegedonitsagreementtoprovidecapitalsufficienttocompletetheCourtlandproject.Id.,at799.Invokingthearbitrationagreements,thebankmovedtocompelarbitrationoftheparties’dispute.TheCircuitCourtorderedrespondentstosubmittoarbitrationinaccordancewiththearbitrationagreements

TheSupremeCourtofAlabamareversedoverJusticeSee’sdissent.ApplyingatestitfirstadoptedinSistersoftheVisitationv.CochranPlasteringCo.,775So.2d759（2000）,thecourtheldthatthedebt--restructuringagreementsweretherelevanttransactionsandproceededtodeterminewhetherthosetransactions,bythemselves,hada“substantialeffectoninterstatecommerce.“872So.2d,at801,803.Becausetherewasnoshowing“thatanyportionoftherestructureddebtwasactuallyattributabletointerstatetransactions;

thatthefundscomprisingthatdebtoriginatedout--of-state;

orthattherestructureddebtwasinseparablefromanyout--of--stateprojects.‘id.,at8,thecourtfoundaninsufficientnexuswithinter---statecommercetoestablishFAAcoverageoftheparties’dispute.

JusticeSeeindissentexplainedwhy,inhisview,thecourthaderredbyusingthetestformulatedinSistersoftheVisitation,inwhichtheSupremeCourtofAlabamareadthisCourt’sopinioninUnitedStatesv.Lopez.514U.S.549（1995）,torequirethat‘aparticularcontract,inordertobeenforceableundertheFederalArbitrationActmust,byitself,haveasubstantialeffectoninterstatecommerce.“872So.2d,at808.Rejectingthatstringenttestandassessingtheevidencewithamoregenerousviewofthenecessaryeffectoninterstatecommerce,JusticeSeewouldhavefoundthatthebank’sloanstoAlafabcosatisfiedtheFAA’sinvolvingcommerce“requirement.

II

TheFAAprovidesthata“writtenprovisioninanymaritimetransactionoracontractevidencingatransactioninvolvingcommercetosettlebyarbitrationacontroversythereafterarisingoutofsuchcontractortransaction,ortransaction,ortherefusaltoperformthewholeoranypartthereof,oranagreementinwritingtosubmittoarbitrationanexistingcontroversyarisingoutofsuchacontract,transaction,orrefusal,shallbevalid,irrevocable,andenforceable,saveuponsuchgroundsasexistatlaworinequityfortherevocationofanycontract.”9U.S.*2.

Thestatutefurtherdefines“commerce“toinclude“commerceamongtheseveralStates.”*1.EchoingJusticeSee’sdissentingopinion,petitionercontendsthatthedecisionbelowgivesinadequatebreadthtothe“involvingcommerce“intheFAAasthefunctionalequivalentofthemorefamiliarterm“affectingcommerce“--wordsofartthatordinarilysignalthebroadestpermissibleexerciseofCongress‘CommerceClausepower.Allied--BruceTerminixCos.513U.S.,at273---274.Becausethestatuteprovidesfor“theenforcementofarbitrationagreementswithinthefullreachoftheCommerceClause.“Perryv.Thomas482U.S.483,490（1987）,itisperfectlyclearthattheFAAencompassesawiderrangeoftransactionsthanthoseactually“incommerce--thatis,“withintheflowofinterstatecommerce,“Allied--BruceTerminixCos.,supra,at273.

TheSupremeCourtoAlabamawasthereforemisguidedinitssearchforevidencethata‘portionoftherestructureddebtwasactuallyattributabletointerstatetransactions‘orthattheloans‘originatedout--of-state‘orthattherestructureddebtwasinseparablefromanyout-of-stateprojects.‘872So.2d,at805.SuchevidencemightberequirediftheFAAwererestrictedtotransactionsactually‘incommerce‘GulfOilCorp.v.CoppPavingCo.,419U.S.186,195-196（1974）,but,aswehaveexplained,thatisnotthelimitoftheFAA‘sreach.

NorisapplicationoftheFAAdefeatedbecausetheindividualdebt--restructuringtransactions,takenalone,didnothavea“substantialeffectoninterstatecommerce.’872So.2d,at803.Congress‘CommerceClausepower‘maybeexercisedinindividualcaseswithoutshowinganyspecificeffectuponinterstatecommerce‘ifintheaggregatetheeconomicactivityinquestionwouldrepresent‘ageneralpractice...Subjecttofederalcontrol.‘MandevilleIslandFarms,Inc.v.AmericanCrystalSugarCo.,334U.S.219,236（1948）.SeealsoPerezv.UnitedStates,402U.S.146,154,（1971）;

Wickardv.Filburn,317U.S.111,127-128（1842）.Onlythatgeneralpracticeneedbearoninterstatecommerceinasubstantialwas.Marylandv.Wirtz,392U.S.183b,196-197,n.27（1968）;

NLRBv.Jones&

LaughlinSteelCorp.,301U.S.1,37-38（1937）.

ThiscaseiswellwithinourpreviouspronouncementsontheextentofCongress‘CommerceClausepower.Althoughthedebt--restructuringagreementswereexecutedinAlabamabyAlabamaresidents,theynonethelesssatisfytheFAA‘sinvolvingcommercetestforatleastthreereasons.First,AlabamaengagedinbusinessthroughoutthesoutheasternUnitedStatesusingsubstantialloansfromthebankthatwererenegotiatedandredocumentedinthedebt-restructuringagreements.Indeed,thegravamenofAlafabco’sstatecourtsuitwasthatithadincurred‘massivedebt‘tothebankinordertokeepitsbusinessafloat,andthebanksubmittedaffidavitsofbankofficersestablishingthatitsloanstoAlafabcohadbeenusedinparttofinancelargeconstructionprojectsinNorthCarolina.Tennessee,andAlabama.

Second,therestructureddebtwassecuredbyallofAlafabco’sbusinessassets,includingitsinventoryofgoodsassembledfromout-of-statepartsandrawmaterials.IftheCommerceClausegivesCongressthepowertoregulatelocalbusinessestablishmentspurchasingsubstantialquantitiesofgoodsthathavemovedininterstatecommerce,Katzenbachv.McClung,379U.S.294,304-305（1964）,itnecessaryreachessubstantialcommercialloantransactionssecuredbysuchgoods.

Third,werethereanyresidualdoubtaboutthemagnitudeoftheimpactoninterstatecommercecausedbytheparticulareconomictransactionsinwhichthepartieswereengaged,thatdoubtwoulddissipateuponconsiderationofthe‘generalpractice‘thosetransactionsrepresent