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”.  Burton J. emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the identification of parties to an arbitration agreement and the definition of the person who may be associated with an English arbitration proceeding. The first is a question governed by the material law of the agreement. This last point is more complex: the law that applies is determined by the application of the principles of English legal choice to the circumstances and therefore depends on why it is alleged that the party should be bound.
3. Notwithstanding the granting of an application under subsection 1 and the consideration of the matter before the judicial authority, arbitration proceedings may be initiated or prosecuted and an arbitration award may be rendered.” One of the first known assumptions and preachings of the “Group of Companies” doctrine can be attributed to the CCI Arbitration Award to Dow Chemical v. Isover-Saint-Gobain1. In this case, the litigation adle adhies adhies between several contracts executed by various subsidiaries of Dow Chemical Company (but not of Dow Chemical Company itself) and Isover. Dow Chemical Company has commenced arbitration proceedings with its subsidiaries. Isover challenged the jurisdiction of the rights invoked by Dow Chemical Company on the grounds that it was not a party to the contract. The court upheld his jurisdiction. In its distinction, the ICC Court of Arbitration stated that mere business relationships between different companies were not sufficient to bind them to a single arbitration and that non-signatory firms must have played a key role in the “conclusion, execution or termination” of contracts. “Any dispute, controversy or request concerning the creation of a corporation [the name of a corporation such as that used in the Charter or other constituent document] must be indicated, its management or participation, including disputes between the participants [shareholders, partners, members – the corresponding term must be chosen according to the organizational-legal form of a corporation] and the corporation itself. , disputes involving persons who are or have been members of the corporate governing and supervisory bodies, as well as disputes relating to the rights of participants concerning the legal relationship with third parties, are settled by arbitration before the International Commercial Arbitration Tribunal with the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry , in accordance with its applicable rules.