The group of companies doctrine aims to extend, under certain conditions, the arbitration agreement signed only by one or some of the companies of a group also to the non-signatory companies of the same group. One of the most interesting issues related to this doctrine is the relationship with the piercing or lifting the corporate veil doctrine. This article analyzes and compares the case law applying these two theories, in order to determine whether there is any difference between them in relation to their scope and the conditions required by courts and arbitration tribunals for their application. In particular, the article aims to determine, on the basis of the result of the above analysis, whether there is any reason for the group of companies doctrine to exist and, as consequence, whether it is possible to rely on it to extend the arbitration agreement to the non-signatory companies of a group.
Journal of International Arbitration