Since Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act,2 courts have liberally enforced a strong national policy favoring arbitration of commercial disputes In furtherance of this goal, courts have refused to stay arbitration proceedings simply because they may involve parties who are nonsignatories to an arbitration agreement.4 Courts have accomplished this objective through the doctrine of equitable estoppel; Sunkist exemplifies that trend. However, Sunkist also represents a corporate scenario in which the emerging legal theory of "defensive piercing"' could be established as another avenue from which to compel commercial arbitration.
Scott M. McKinnis,
Enforcing Arbitration with a Nonsignatory: Equitable Estoppel and Defense Piercing of the Corporate Veil - Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc.,
1995 J. Disp. Resol.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol1995/iss1/11