A collection of the most recent U.S. international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.
-
Molecular Dynamic, Ltd. v. Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited, No. 24-2209 (2d Cir. July 2, 2025)07/02/2025
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of a petition to vacate an arbitral award issued by a foreign tribunal, concluding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Chapter 2 of the FAA. Court of appeals held that a vacatur action directed at a foreign award does not fall under the New York Convention, and therefore that 9 USC § 203 does not supply subject matter jurisdiction to the district court. Court of appeals concluded that the New York Convention “specifically envisions” that vacatur proceedings be decided in the country in which or under the law of which the award was made.
-
Ma v. Fang, No. 8:21-CV-00441-MCS-ADS (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2025)06/24/2025
Court denied respondent’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion for relief from a judgment confirming a foreign arbitral award, declining to consider newly proffered evidence. Noting that no authority in the award’s primary jurisdiction had annulled the decision, the court concluded that revisiting the merits would undermine international comity, contravene the New York Convention, and raise other prudential concerns.
-
Metropolitan Municipality of Lima v. Rutas de Lima S.A.C., No. 1:20-CV-02155-ACR (D.D.C. June 20, 2025)06/20/2025
Court dismissed motion to stay judgment pending appeal, finding that municipality did not make a strong showing that it was likely to prevail on appeal, monetary judgements are not irreparable, and the public interest supports efficient process for recognizing and executing arbitral awards. Court also held that repeated assertions by municipality that they would not pay award made request for stay a dilatory tactic designed to delay payment.
-
Prime Success, L.P. v. Sinovac Biotech Ltd., No. 25-CV-04989-RA (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2025)06/20/2025
Court dismissed petition seeking to enjoin ongoing suit in Antigua in favor of arbitration proceeding in Hong Kong. Court found that the petitioner in the US action was seeking only an injunction, not requesting Court to compel arbitration or issue a ruling on arbitrability, and thus the US action was not dispositive of the Antiguan action as required to issue foreign anti-suit injunction.
-
Olive Group FZ-LLC v. Afghanistan Civil Aviation Authority, No. 1:24-CV-02170-SLS (D.D.C. June 12, 2025).06/12/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion for default judgment and confirmed arbitration award. Court found it had personal jurisdiction and that petitioner’s alternative service by email on respondent Afghanistan was proper, after conventional service methods through mail and diplomatic channels were unavailable.
-
Yukos Capital Limited v. The Russian Federation, No. 22-CV-00798-CJN (D.D.C. June 11, 2025)06/11/2025
Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss, motion to stay, and supplemental motion to stay. Court found it had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Energy Charter Treaty’s arbitration article and personal jurisdiction following petitioner’s service through diplomatic channels. Court further rejected respondent’s motion to stay, determining that pending cases cited by respondent were not relevant.
-
Eurofinsa, S.A. v. The Gabonese Republic, No. 23-CV-03013-RC (D.D.C. June 11, 2025)06/11/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion to attach assets following recognition of arbitral award. Court determined that respondent had received proper notice of a default judgment and that a reasonable period of time had elapsed since the judgment, during which respondent had made no effort to pay.
-
Archirodon Construction (Overseas) Company Limited v. General Company for Ports of Iraq, No. 22-CV-01571 (D.D.C. June 10, 2025)06/10/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion for contempt and ordered respondents to pay $15,000 per day in sanctions. Court found that respondents had not complied with post-judgment asset discovery orders and that sanctions were appropriate, as all other measures to ensure compliance were exhausted.
-
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 23–1201 (U.S. June 5, 2025)06/05/2025
Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision by the Ninth Circuit, which held that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction to confirm an arbitral award in a dispute involving a foreign state. Court clarified that, under the FSIA, personal jurisdiction does not require a minimum contacts analysis. Instead, the Court held that personal jurisdiction exists, if one of the exceptions to immunity enumerated in the FSIA applies and the plaintiff effectuated proper service.
-
Shanghai Liyu Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. v. Brite Lite Tribe, LLC, No. 24-CV-80690-RLR (S.D. Fla. June 4, 2025)06/04/2025
Court issued an indicative ruling that it would amend and clarify its prior order confirming an arbitral award, if the Eleventh Circuit returned jurisdiction to the court. Court found that its original order lacked a specific statement of the monetary amounts awarded, which could impede enforcement. However, the court’s authority to grant relief was limited by the pending appeal at the Eleventh Circuit.
-
Eletson Holdings Inc. and Eletson Corporation v. Levona Holdings Ltd., No. 1:23-CV-07331- LJL (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2025)06/02/2025
Court granted petition for antisuit injunction staying foreign proceedings to enforce an arbitral award until the US court resolves the pending action. Court found that the foreign actions sought to circumvent a related bankruptcy confirmation order and ongoing US proceedings regarding the arbitral award’s validity. Court held that the parties in the foreign and US actions are substantially the same, and that the US case will be dispositive of the foreign proceedings.
-
Reel Games Inc. v. Euro Game Technology, Ltd., No. 0:24-CV-60713-DSL (S.D. Fla. June 02, 2025)06/02/2025
Court granted motion to compel arbitration to be commenced under the Court of Arbitration at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce. Court held that the parties’ agreements contained valid and enforceable arbitration clauses, and that the defendant’s claims fell within the scope of the broad clauses. Court further rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration clauses do not survive the termination of the parties’ agreements.
-
AAK USA, Inc. v. Integrity Ingredients Corporation, No. 1:25-CV-01727-JGK (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2025)05/29/2025
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award pursuant to 9 USC § 9, holding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact. Court found that its role in reviewing an award is limited—the award is to be confirmed even if there is a “barely colorable justification” for the decision.
-
Penneco Oil Company, Inc. v. K. Petroleum, Inc., No. 25-CV-00121-WSH (W.D. Pa. May 21, 2025)05/21/2025
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to require defendant to post a security bond during proceedings to confirm or vacate the underlying arbitration award. Court found Local Rule 67.1(B) gave it discretion to order such a bond to protect against potential asset dissipation and found no justification to disregard the local rule or evidence of prejudice to defendant.
-
Happy CP Company Ltd. v. LB Accessories LLC, No. 2:24-CV-02274-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2025)05/19/2025
Magistrate judge recommended granting petitioner’s motion for default judgment to confirm a foreign arbitration award after respondents failed to appear or respond. Magistrate judge found the award enforceable under the New York Convention and FAA, recommended that petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs be denied without prejudice, and recommended entering judgment in the amount of the award.
-
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. 3131 Veterans Blvd LLC, No. 23-1268 (2d Cir. May 8, 2025)05/08/2025
Court of appeals held that Article II § 3 of the New York Convention, which provides that when a party seeks to enforce an arbitration agreement the courts of contracting states shall refer parties to arbitration unless the agreement is null and void, is a self-executing provision thereby abrogating its prior decision in Stephens v. American International Insurance, 66 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Stephens I”). Court of appeals reversed the district court decisions which relied on Stephens I to reject petitioners’ efforts to compel arbitration. Court of appeals rejected the respondents’ argument that Louisiana state insurance law voided the arbitration clauses, because state insurance laws could reverse preempt any federal legislation that does not specifically address insurance, as well as any treaty provisions that are not self-executing.
-
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The Lopez-Goyne Family, No. 3:24-CV-03104-MMC (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2025)05/05/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of respondents’ joint and several liability for costs awarded by the arbitral tribunal. Respondents argued costs were owed severally and petitioner should seek clarification of the award using Article 50 of the ICSID Convention. Court held that the tribunal’s language directing the award of costs was consistent with an intent to impose joint and several liability and found no ambiguity requiring clarification from the arbitral tribunal.
-
ICM Investment Partners II, LLC v. 360 Commercial Real Estate, LLC, No. 1:25-CV-00937-JAV (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2025)05/01/2025
Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, finding petitioner met its burden of showing there was no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude summary judgment on the petition, because the arbitrator’s decision provided more than “a barely colorable justification” for the outcome reached. Court also found no justification under §10(a) of the FAA for vacating the award. Court dissolved the automatic stay on execution of the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a) because petitioner established a credible fear that respondents may dissipate assets to avoid enforcement of the judgment.
-
Xu v. Zhuang, No. 24-CV-08671-RGK-BFM (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2025)05/01/2025
Court granted Xu’s petition for confirmation of an arbitral award granted by the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration under the NY Convention, finding no basis to conclude that the arbitrator made a mistake of law or fact, or that such a mistake could rise to the level of offending public policy.
-
US Trinity Energy Services, L.L.C. v. Southeast Directional Drilling, L.L.C., No. 24-10833 (5th Cir. April 28, 2025)04/28/2025
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the petition to vacate an arbitration award under 9 USC §10(a)(4) and grant of respondent’s motion to confirm the award. Court found petitioner failed to show the arbitration panel exceeded its powers and held that “manifest disregard of the law” is not a basis for vacatur under §10(a)(4).
-
Zhuhai Dingfu Phase I Industrial Energy Conservation Investment Fund, LP v. Zhang, No. 8:23-CV-02059-MRA-JDE (C.D. Cal. April 25, 2025)04/25/2025
Court granted in part and denied in part respondent’s motion to amend findings and judgment and denied respondent’s motion for stay of execution of judgment as moot. Court amended the judgment to order post-judgment interest at the rate in 28 USC § 1961(a) but declined to allow discovery on the amount petitioner collected from respondent’s assets in China and declined to amend based on what respondent described as newly discovered evidence of duress.
-
Soar Earth Ltd v. Mahaffie, No. 1:24-CV-02757-DDD-NRN (D. Colo. April 24, 2025)04/24/2025
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s contract claims based on a provision in an agreement for the sale of services subjecting “[a]ll disputes between or among the parties under or relating to this Agreement” to binding arbitration. Court found that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitration provision was enforceable with respect to all defendants.
-
Madison Pacific Trust Limited v. Groza, 25-CV-00642-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2025)04/10/2025
Court granted petitioner’s application to serve respondents via alternative means under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 for purposes of initiating proceedings to confirm an arbitral award. Court found that petitioner had demonstrated that respondents’ physical whereabouts were unknown and could not be ascertained with reasonable diligence, and serving respondents by email was reasonably calculated to satisfy due process requirements. Court also directed delivery of service papers to addresses listed on court filings in parallel proceedings.
-
J&J Empire Express, Inc. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 1:24-CV-01200-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2025)04/09/2025
Court denied petition to vacate an arbitration award and confirmed the award, holding that petitioner had not demonstrated that the arbitrator committed manifest disregard for the law in issuing the award.
-
Shanghai Liyu Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. v. Brite Lite Tribe, LLC, 9:24-CV-80690-RLR (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2025)04/08/2025
Court granted a petition to confirm an arbitral award under the New York Convention based on the court’s factual findings following an evidentiary hearing that petitioner properly served respondent and legal conclusion that the underlying award dealt with matters within the scope of the arbitration.
-
Webuild S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, 1:21-CV-02464-RBW (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2025)04/04/2025
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and confirmed an ICSID arbitral award, holding that it had personal jurisdiction over defendant, subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and the award was authentic.
-
The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v. Baldwin, No. 1:22-CV-00011 (D.N. Mar. Is. April 3, 2025)04/04/2025
Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court accepted respondents’ argument that the Government of Laos’ petition to enforce an arbitration award against them was premature, as respondents were not parties to the underlying arbitration and a determination of whether respondents could be held liable as alter egos was inappropriate in the context of an action to confirm an arbitration award.
-
Terra Towers Corp. v. Schachter, No. 1:22-CV-06150-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2025)04/01/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation pursuant to the FAA and New York Convention. Court reasoned that while defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement, non-signatories could enforce the arbitration agreement by equitable estoppel where the dispute defendants sought to resolve was intertwined with the underlying agreement and the parties maintained a close enough relationship to justify arbitration.
-
Quandel Construction Group, Inc. v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-02362-ALM-EDP (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2025)03/31/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that respondent waived its right to arbitrate. Court found that based on the totality of the circumstances, respondent’s actions were not “completely inconsistent” with its later reliance on the arbitration agreement, because its previous objections to arbitration were reasonably qualified and limited to particular deficiencies.
-
Kodiak Gas Services LLC v. Legend Energy Advisors LLC, No. 4:24-CV-01333 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2025)03/31/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding the parties’ settlement agreement contained a valid agreement to arbitrate and did not expressly exclude certain disputes from arbitration.
-
Hebei Viroad Biotechnology Co., Ltd. v. Phippy LLC, No. 24-CV-00555 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2025)03/28/2025
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims in favor of international arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, holding that there was a written agreement between a US and a non-US party to arbitrate a commercial purchase dispute. Court found that arbitration provisions using the language “may” should be construed to give either party the option to require arbitration. Court, therefore, determined that the arbitration agreement was mandatory and enforceable despite its permissive language because the plain language demonstrated an intent to arbitrate upon the election to do so by either party.
-
Port of Vancouver USA v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 24-CV-06033-DGE (W.D. Wash. Mar. 26, 2025)03/26/2025
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, holding that the ambiguity grounds outlined in the FAA to vacate the award did not apply because the arbitration panel provided, upon remand, necessary clarifications to a previously judicially unenforceable award. Court also found that the panel did not exceed its authority by redetermining issues previously decided because it was responding to a court order requiring it to add specificity to its original award.
-
Norman Intertrade Ltd. v. Bon-Woong Koo, No. 24-CV-02422-HSG (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025)03/24/2025
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, holding that the award fell under the New York Convention because it arose out of a commercial relationship between non-US parties. Court reasoned that defendants failed to meet their substantial burden to show that a defense to the enforcement of the award applied because they did not oppose the petition.
-
Phillips v. Galisky, No. 24-CV-00158 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 24, 2025)03/24/2025
Court granted a petition to confirm an arbitration award, holding that none of the grounds for vacatur under the FAA applied. Court found that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers, finding that there was no error in the arbitrator including entities not subject to the agreement in the award, rather, the award was simply unenforceable with regard to those entities.
-
AKF Inc. v. Skybell Technologies Inc., No. 24-CV-02271-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2025)03/24/2025
Court granted a petition to confirm an arbitration award, holding that none of the FAA grounds for vacatur applied. Court found that the public policy exception would only apply when the enforcement of an award constituted a predatory loan, not where, as here, respondents’ claim that the underlying contract was invalid, which was for determination of the arbitrator. Court also found that the award did not exhibit a manifest disregard of law simply because respondents disagreed with the arbitrator’s interpretation and application of legal precedent.
-
Leviathan Group LLC v. Delco LLC, dba Delco Products, No. 24-1547 (6th Cir. Mar. 21, 2025)03/21/2025
Court of appeals denied defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate district court’s order confirming arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator was acting within the scope of her authority. Court of appeals reasoned that where parties have bargained for an arbitrator—and not federal judges—to decide their dispute, legal or interpretive errors by arbitrators must be tolerated if the arbitrator has arguably construed the agreement. Court further found that where the arbitration agreement does not require the arbitrator to explain her decision, courts will not vacate an award for failure to provide such an explanation.
-
World Media Alliance Label, Inc. v. Ello Entertainment Group, LLC, No. 23-CV-21985-FAM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2025)03/21/2025
Court denied petitioner’s renewed motion for contempt based on respondent’s failure to satisfy an arbitration award confirmed by the court. Court found that under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent, court orders confirming arbitral awards operate as final monetary judgments because they require the payment of a definite sum of money. Because monetary judgments fall outside the court’s contempt power, court held that the appropriate process to enforce the award was a writ of execution, not a finding of contempt.
-
Btesh v. Btesh, No. 23-CV-23679-JB (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2025)03/21/2025
Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss petition to confirm and enforce an arbitration award under the Inter-American Convention, finding it did not have personal jurisdiction over the respondent. Court reasoned that petitioner could not plead sufficient facts to demonstrate a connection to the forum to establish specific or general personal jurisdiction, or jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). Moreover, Section 9 of the FAA did not provide an independent basis for personal jurisdiction.
-
Abbas v. Truist Bank, No. 3:24-CV-01283 (M.D. Tenn. March 20, 2025)03/20/2025
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that defendants could not use a separately signed contract containing an arbitration agreement to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate an issue arising from a contract containing no such provision.
-
Arrive NOLA Hotel, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, No. 24-1585 (E.D. La. March 20, 2025)03/20/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration as to both foreign and domestic insurers involved and granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. Court found that plaintiff’s signature was not necessary for the agreement to arbitrate to be valid, because the arbitration clause was part of a larger contract—in this case, an insurance policy—that was in writing and effective. Court further held that the agreement was not null and void because, though the plaintiff did not consent to the terms of the original policy, plaintiff manifested consent by renewing the policy containing the arbitration clause. Court also held that, following Fifth Circuit precedent, federal equitable estoppel principles could be used to compel arbitration as to domestic insurers when foreign insurers were required to arbitrate under the New York Convention.
-
Maclin v. Allenbrooke Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-02472-TLP-ATC (W.D. Tenn. March 19, 2025)03/19/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay federal court proceedings, finding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable on account of its length, or the differences in bargaining power. Despite finding that the fee provision was unenforceable, court nevertheless found it was severable. Court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that the agreement was unenforceable because it constituted a violation of the defendant care facility’s fiduciary duty. Court found that the agreement was compliant with federal statute, and that any further questions of enforceability would go to the arbitrator.
-
Cuker v. Berezofsky, No. 24-0471 (E.D. Pa. March 18, 2025)03/18/2025
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm final arbitration award and denied defendant’s cross-motion to vacate or modify the award. Court dismissed defendant’s manifest disregard argument that arbitral panel misallocated fees among the parties and that the panel also misinterpreted the governing dissolution agreement, resulting in a misallocation of costs for the proceeding. Court found there was strong support for the panel’s decisions, and that one of the matters for which the defendant argued fees were misallocated was not raised at arbitration.
-
Merritt v. Square Capital, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-02196-TLP-ATC (W.D. Tenn. March 18, 2025)03/18/2025
Court adopted magistrate’s report and recommendation and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the magistrate correctly noted that each of plaintiff’s arguments against referring the matter to arbitration were issues that themselves needed to be arbitrated.
-
Teleport Mobility, Inc v. Sywula, No. 21-CV-00874-SI (N.D. Cal. March 18, 2025)03/18/2025
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay proceedings, denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, and confirmed the arbitration award in part but held it did not have jurisdiction to confirm the award in full. Court held it only had jurisdiction over the portions of the award concerning issues and parties previously before the court, and that the other portions of the award would need to be confirmed by a state court judge.
-
Spineway SA v. Strategos Group, LLC, No. 24-1584 (3d Cir. Mar. 18, 2025)03/18/2025
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying petition to confirm a foreign arbitration award because the arbitrator was not selected in accordance with the parties’ agreement. Court of Appeals found that, despite a reference to the non-existent Geneva ICC in their agreement, the parties intended the ICC, not the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI), to select the arbitrator and intended for the ICC rules to govern. Since the arbitrator was selected under SCAI rules, in contravention of the parties’ agreement, the district court properly refused to confirm the award under the New York Convention.
-
CSRS, LLC v. Element 25 Limited, No. 24-CV-00358-RLB (M.D. La. Mar. 18, 2025)03/18/2025
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay pending arbitration, following the Fifth Circuit precedent that an agreement’s provision that a dispute “may” be resolved by arbitration is not permissive, but rather makes arbitration mandatory if one of the parties to the contract requests it. Court also found that any dispute regarding arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator on the basis that the agreement incorporated by reference the LCIA rules. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration clause was null and void, finding that the FAA pre-empted the Louisiana statute that would have otherwise prohibited the arbitration from occurring in London.
-
Zhongtie Dacheng (Zhuhai) Inv. Mgmt. Co. Ltd. v. Yan, No. 24-736 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2025)02/27/2025
Court of Appeals vacated district court judgment granting petition to enforce award against respondents under the New York Convention, explaining the “district court failed to show its work” in making the required factual findings to support confirmation of the award, including whether the agreement containing the arbitration clause was forged.
-
Wang v. Haitou Global (Cayman) Inc., No. 24-CV-07781-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2025)02/25/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims asserted against it by plaintiff because plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court denied cross-motion to compel arbitration against non-signatory defendants, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments based on alter-ego and direct benefits theories.
-
Spire Global Subsidiary, Inc. v. NorthStar Earth & Space, Inc., No. 24-CV-08434-JHR-SLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2025)02/24/2025
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the broad scope of the relevant arbitration clause covered the disputes plaintiff had filed in the litigation. Court also found that the dispute resolution clause in a second relevant contract did not displace the arbitration clause in the first relevant contract because the arbitration clause provided a more limited means for resolving disputes arising out of the contracts.
-
Flintlock Construction Services, LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company & Catlin Specialty Insurance Company, No. 24-791 (2d Cir. Feb. 21, 2025)02/21/2025
Court of Appeals affirmed district court’s denial of petitioner’s request to vacate arbitration award. Court of Appeals found the arbitration panel did not exceed its authority in its interpretation of the underlying agreement and that the panel’s decision was not irrational because it reflected the “plain meaning” of the underlying agreement.