安赫莉卡·塞拉诺-罗马（Angélica Serrano-Román）报道 美国最高法院同意审理高盛（Goldman Sachs）的一项请求，该请求涉及破产法院是否可以推翻仲裁协议，这将对《联邦仲裁法》的适用范围进行一次高风险的测试。
By Angélica Serrano-Román The US Supreme Court agreed to review a request by Goldman Sachs on whether bankruptcy courts can override arbitration agreements, setting up a high-stakes test of the Federal Arbitration Act’s reach.
周五，法院批准了这家跨国投资银行的请求，要求最高法院澄清在何种情况下，如果债权人违反了保护破产个人和公司的自动诉讼中止令，破产法院可以拒绝执行《美国破产法》第362(k)条下的仲裁协议。
The court on Friday approved the multinational investment bank’s request that the high court clarify whether, and under what circumstances, a bankruptcy court can refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement for claims under Section 362(k) of US Bankruptcy Code if a creditor violates the automatic litigation stay protecting bankrupt people and companies.
高盛表示，由于第362(k)条问题在破产案件中经常出现，因此巡回法院在此问题上的分歧反映了下级法院对《联邦仲裁法》与破产法交叉问题的困惑。
Goldman Sachs said that because Section 362(k) issues arise frequently in bankruptcy, a circuit split on this issue reflected lower-court confusion about the FAA’s intersection with bankruptcy law.
高盛在美国第四巡回上诉法院的一项要求强制仲裁的诉讼中败诉，该诉讼指控高盛在中止令生效期间继续进行债务催收，违反了破产法。第四巡回上诉法院三名法官中的多数人认为，仲裁与破产法典的核心宗旨存在固有冲突。持不同意见的法官罗伯特·B·金（Robert B. King）认为，债务人的索赔应提交仲裁。
Goldman Sachs lost a bid in the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to compel arbitration in a suit alleging it violated bankruptcy law by continuing debt collection efforts despite the stay. The majority of the three-judge Fourth Circuit panel found that arbitration inherently conflicts with the core purposes of the bankruptcy code. Judge Robert B. King, in a dissent, found that the debtors’ claims belong in arbitration.
《联邦仲裁法》确立了在双方同意仲裁时倾向于仲裁的国家政策。但破产法旨在为债务人的财务事务提供集体、集中的解决方案。法院在是否使用考虑问题是“核心”还是“非核心”以及仲裁是否会产生固有冲突的测试方面普遍存在分歧。
The FAA creates a national policy favoring arbitration when parties have agreed to it. But bankruptcy law is designed to provide a collective, centralized resolution of a debtor’s financial affairs. Courts are generally divided over the use of a test that considers whether issues are “core” or “non-core” and whether arbitration creates an inherent conflict.
最高法院尚未测试过这两种法定计划之间的紧张关系。本案中的债务人是高盛发行的两名Apple Card账户持有人，他们辩称最高法院不应受理此案，因为其具体事实——涉及第13章中止令——使其不适合妥善解决更广泛的法律问题。美国银行家协会提交了一份支持高盛的法庭之友简报。
The Supreme Court hasn’t tested the tension between the two statutory schemes. The debtors in this lawsuit, two holders of Apple Card accounts issued by Goldman Sachs, argued the Supreme Court shouldn’t take the case because its specific facts — involving a Chapter 13 stay — make it an unsuitable fit to properly resolve the broader legal question. The American Bankers Association filed an amicus brief in support of Goldman Sachs.
莱什曼律师事务所代表高盛。Kellett & Bartholow PLLC律师事务所和Giles & Lambert PC律师事务所代表消费者借款人。
Latham & Watkins LLP represents Goldman Sachs. Kellett & Bartholow PLLC and Giles & Lambert PC represent the consumer borrowers.
本案为高盛银行诉布朗案，美国，第25-1408号，2026年11月6日驳回/批准了调卷令。
The case is Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Brown, U.S., No. 25-1408, cert denied/granted 11/6/26.