Arthur Andersen LLP, et al. v. Wayne Carlisle et al. (556 U.S. 624)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 4, 2009 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 556 U.S. 624 · 129 S. Ct. 1896
- Decided
- May 4, 2009
- Term
- October Term 2008
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) entitles litigants in federal court to a stay of any action that is “referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing.” 9 U. S. C. § 3. Section 16(a)(1)(A), in turn, allows an appeal from “an order... refusing a stay of any action under section 3.” We address in this case whether appellate courts have jurisdiction under § 16(a) to review denials of stays requested by litigants who were not parties to the relevant arbitration agreement, and whether §3 can ever mandate a stay in such circumstances. I Respondents Wayne Carlisle, James Bushman, and Gary Strassel set out to minimize their taxes from the 1999 sale of their construction-equipment company. Arthur Andersen LLP, a firm that had long served as their company’s accountant, auditor, and tax adviser, introduced them to Bricolage Capital, LLC, which in turn referred them for legal advice to Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP. According to respondents, these advisers recommended a “leveraged option strategy” tax shelter designed to create illusory losses through foreign-currency-exchange options. As a part of the scheme, respondents invested in various stock warrants through newly created limited liability companies (LLCs), which are also respondents in this case. The respondent LLCs entered into…
Excerpt of a 19,441-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.