Coors Brewing Company, a Colorado Corporation v. Molson Breweries, an Ontario Partnership Molson Breweries of Canada Limited, a Canadian Corporation, and Miller Brewing Company, a Wisconsin Corporation the Molson Companies Limited, a Canadian Corporation and Molson Breweries, U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware Corporation

Citations: 51 F.3d 1511; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 6460Docket: 94-1217

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; March 29, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Molson appeals the district court's denial of its motion to stay Coors Brewing Company's antitrust lawsuit pending contract arbitration. The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, affirms in part and reverses in part the district court’s decision. Background details reveal that Coors, a Colorado corporation, entered a licensing agreement in 1985 with Molson Breweries of Canada Limited, allowing Molson to brew and distribute Coors products in Canada, with provisions for confidentiality, termination, and arbitration for disputes. In 1993, Miller Brewing Company formed a partnership with Molson, which included a reciprocal licensing agreement allowing Miller exclusive distribution of Molson products in the U.S. and vice versa. The arbitration clause stipulates that disputes shall be resolved under the American Arbitration Association's rules.

Coors has initiated arbitration against Molson for alleged contract breaches, seeking injunctive relief, damages, and termination of their licensing agreement. Concurrently, Coors filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court against Molson and Miller for antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts. The allegations are categorized into three areas: (1) the Miller-Molson alliance is claimed to restrain trade and reduce competition in the beer market; (2) Miller is accused of gaining access to Coors's confidential marketing information; and (3) Miller is said to control the distribution and marketing of Coors brands in Canada. 

Molson has moved to stay the antitrust proceedings pending the arbitration's outcome, a motion the district court denied. Molson contends this denial was erroneous, asserting that Coors is attempting to circumvent the arbitration agreement by framing contract claims as antitrust issues. Molson argues that arbitration will resolve factual matters pivotal to the antitrust claims. Conversely, Coors maintains the claims are separate, with its contractual rights subject to arbitration while its competition interests are not. 

The court reviews the arbitrability of contracts de novo, with the Federal Arbitration Act mandating stays of judicial proceedings when a written arbitration agreement exists. There is a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, particularly in international contexts, and doubts are resolved in favor of arbitrability. Molson cites the Mitsubishi Motors case to support the assertion that antitrust claims may be arbitrated even without explicit mention in the arbitration clause.

In Mitsubishi, Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Corporation, a Puerto Rican car dealership, faced challenges selling its allocated cars during the 1981 recession. To mitigate contract breach risks, Soler requested that Mitsubishi sell it certain automobile parts for export purposes, but Mitsubishi refused, citing concerns about Soler's capability to maintain quality and service in other markets. When Soler declined to accept the cars as contracted, Mitsubishi initiated legal action under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Soler counterclaimed, alleging a Sherman Act violation due to Mitsubishi's refusal to cooperate. Mitsubishi sought to stay the district court proceedings for arbitration, which was granted, leading to Soler's appeal.

The First Circuit upheld that Soler's claims fell within the arbitration agreement's scope but ruled that the arbitration of antitrust claims was void as against public policy. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the First Circuit's view on the scope of claims but reversed its public policy ruling, emphasizing the necessity for parties to honor arbitration agreements.

Coors contends that the FAA and the Mitsubishi decision do not apply to its dispute for two reasons: it argues that the arbitration clause in the Coors-Molson license agreement is narrower and does not encompass antitrust disputes, and that its antitrust claims, even if included, fall outside the contract's scope. Coors differentiates its clause from Mitsubishi’s, claiming it is limited to "implementation, interpretation, and enforcement" of the agreement, unlike Mitsubishi's broad clause covering "all disputes."

Coors has not provided legal authority to substantiate its claim that the arbitration clause is narrow or that antitrust disputes fall outside its scope. It fails to present a compelling interpretive argument for excluding these disputes from the clause, which broadly encompasses "implementation, interpretation, and enforcement." Consequently, the arbitration clause is interpreted to include antitrust disputes related to the agreement.

Upon determining that the Coors-Molson arbitration clause covers antitrust disputes, the analysis shifts to whether Coors's specific claims fall within the contract's scope. Coors contends that its claims are unrelated to the contract, arguing they should not be subject to arbitration. The conclusion is reached that some of Coors's antitrust claims are indeed within the scope of the licensing agreement, while others are not.

Referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Mitsubishi, which upheld the arbitration of antitrust claims closely linked to contractual provisions, the First Circuit noted that the factual basis of those claims must relate to the contract's terms. The reasoning in Mitsubishi suggests that only antitrust claims with a reasonable factual connection to the contract are subject to arbitration, implying that not all of Coors's antitrust claims are arbitrable. Thus, Coors retains the right to litigate its claims that do not relate to the contract.

Contractual arbitration of antitrust claims is limited to disputes directly related to the contract, as established by Mitsubishi. Molson's interpretation, which suggests that all brewers except Coors can bring antitrust actions against it, misreads Mitsubishi. While Mitsubishi permits arbitration for contract-related antitrust disputes, it does not imply that all disputes in the presence of an arbitration clause are subject to arbitration. A prerequisite remains that the dispute must relate to the contract, as supported by AT&T Technologies. An example illustrates that unrelated tort claims, even if parties have a contract, are not arbitrable under such clauses. Coors is allowed to litigate its antitrust claims regarding the Miller-Molson relationship in court, provided those claims are unrelated to the licensing agreement.

Molson's argument for a stay of antitrust litigation until arbitration resolves related factual issues lacks supporting authority. Supreme Court precedent indicates that litigation can proceed in a piecemeal manner when parties have agreed to arbitrate some but not all issues, as seen in Dean Witter Reynolds. The intertwining of claims does not necessitate arbitration of the entire complaint.

Furthermore, Molson's reliance on a commentator's view that general arbitration clauses cover all antitrust disputes unless specifically excluded is misleading. The commentator's advice emphasizes the need for clarity in contracts to avoid unintended arbitration of antitrust claims. Coors could have prevented this litigation by explicitly exempting antitrust disputes from its arbitration clause. Ultimately, the article supports Coors's position, indicating that only claims unrelated to the contractual relationship are litigable.

Coors is permitted to pursue antitrust claims unrelated to its licensing agreement with Molson, as these claims concerning market concentration do not fall under the arbitration clause of the contract. However, claims involving confidentiality and proprietary information stemming from the licensing agreement must be arbitrated, reinforcing the contractual obligation to resolve such disputes through arbitration. 

Coors's claim that Miller's control over Molson may negatively impact competition in the beer markets is noted as underdeveloped, lacking specific allegations of anti-competitive effects. Nonetheless, Coors has provided sufficient factual outlines to warrant discovery and the potential development of a theory independent of the licensing agreement. The court does not make a conclusive judgment on this control theory at this stage but allows for further exploration as the case progresses.

Molson's request to stay Coors's action against Miller is evaluated under the standard of judicial efficiency and the discretion of the district court. The court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the stay, as arbitration can proceed alongside non-arbitrable litigation. This decision reflects the court's authority over its docket and the current status of the litigation.

The district court's denial of Molson's motion to stay regarding Coors's claims of conspiracy to monopolize the North American beer market is affirmed. However, the court reverses the decision concerning Coors's allegations related to proprietary information. A preliminary determination indicates that Coors's claim that Miller's control over Molson could lead to anti-competitive effects is not linked to the licensing agreement. The district court is instructed to reconsider Molson's motion after discovery and refinement of theories by both parties. Additionally, the case involves changes in the Coors corporate entity, which are deemed irrelevant to the analysis. Under the relevant agreement, Miller and Foster's Brewing Group each acquired a 20% stake, while the original Molson entity retained 40% of the partnership that wholly owns Molson. Coors contends that Molson can brew and distribute American brands in Canada and the U.S. due to liberalized trade. The document references arbitration provisions under 9 U.S.C. Sec. 3, emphasizing that if a suit relates to an arbitrable issue, the court should stay the trial until arbitration is completed. The excerpt also discusses the Mitsubishi arbitration clause and the implications of antitrust claims under prior case law, notably the Sylvania case, which shifted the analysis of vertical restraints.

Mr. Baker, representing Coors, has produced scholarship that contradicts Coors's position in the current case, though the authorship of the article is deemed irrelevant to its analysis. The article categorizes antitrust causes of action into four groups: (1) disputes between horizontal partnerships and vertical manufacturer-seller relationships; (2) buyer-seller disputes; (3) disputes causing market damage; and (4) disputes between competitors. It asserts that while the first two categories can be managed through careful planning in contracts, the third and fourth categories typically do not involve contractual relationships, making them unsuitable for arbitration. The antitrust disputes in this case fall into either category three or four and are unrelated to any contract. Additionally, the commentary highlights that the oligopolistic nature of the American beer market, along with its focus on advertising, presents significant antitrust concerns, suggesting that conventional antitrust analysis is inadequate for this market.