The Court compelled arbitration of a claim for injury damages raised by a waiter working aboard a cruise ship. The Court first noted that the four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were undisputedly met: Prcic’s employment contract contained an arbitration agreement in writing, providing for arbitration in a Convention State (Bermuda) and arising out of a commercial legal relationship, and at least one of the parties was not a US citizen. The sole objection raised by Prcic was whether Carnival, as a nonsignatory to the employment contract, could enforce the arbitration agreement therein. The Court decided this issue applying federal common law notions of equitable estoppel. It explained that which law to apply to threshold questions of arbitrability, such as the application of equitable estoppel to a nonsignatory’s attempt to compel arbitration, had recently come before the Eleventh Circuit as a matter of first impression. The Court found persuasive, and predictive of the Eleventh Circuit’s view, a concurring opinion stating that “all signs point to the conclusion that we must apply federal common law in determining whether equitable estoppel applies in New York Convention cases”. Thus applying federal common law notions of equitable estoppel to the present case, the Court held that both conditions under which a nonsignatory is allowed to compel arbitration were satisfied: Prcic (i) was relying on the employment contract containing the arbitration clause in asserting its claims against the nonsignatory, and (ii) was alleging collusive misconduct between the nonsignatory Carnival and the company which has signed the contract with Prcic.