Does a federal court have jurisdiction under the New York Convention to confirm an arbitral award where the underlying agreement is exclusively between US citizens and the enterprise was focused on US activities?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly referred to as the “New York Convention,” is an international treaty that creates consistent standards for the treatment of arbitration agreements and the enforcement of arbitral awards in signatory countries. This Court has explained that the adoption and implementation of the New York Convention in the United States was principally done for the purpose of “encourag|[ing] the recognition and enforcement of commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts” and to create a global framework for dealing with arbitration and arbitral awards. Does a federal court, therefore, have jurisdiction under the New York Convention to confirm an arbitral award where the underlying agreement of a United States limited liability company is exclusively between United States citizens and the enterprise was focused singularly on United States activities? 2. Where the determination of whether a party is subject to an arbitration is normally for courts—and not arbitration panels— is it appropriate for courts to confirm an arbitration award where the arbitration panel based its entire award on adverse inferences drawn from the lack of participation of parties that were not signatories to the arbitration agreement and were not ever found to be properly subject to the arbitration proceedings by any court? 3. The necessity of an impartial decision maker and equity in the selection of an arbitration panel are 1 Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 520 n.15 (1974) (emphasis added). (i) ll principles globally recognized as essential to having fundamental fairness in arbitration proceedings. Therefore, should a court confirm an arbitration award where an arbitration panel is selected with one side of the dispute electing a supermajority of the panel through an absurd interpretation of the parties’ agreement?