Can a foreign arbitration award be enforced pursuant to the Convention (9 USC 207) where the arbitration agreement does not meet the Convention's definitional requisite [Art. II(2)] of bilateral signatures? And, is that defect jurisdictional, or merely fatal to the merits of the enforcement action?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Relying on a minority view of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) definition of an arbitration agreement, the court below confirmed a foreign arbitral award and disregarded Louisiana and federal law as to the preclusive effect of an interlocutory order compelling arbitration. 1. Can a foreign arbitration award be enforced pursuant to the Convention (9 USC 207) where the arbitration agreement does not meet the Convention’s definitional requisite [Art. II(2)] of bilateral signatures? And, is that defect jurisdictional, or merely fatal to the merits of the enforcement action? 2. Is a 9 USC 206 order staying litigation and compelling arbitration preclusive, or subject to judicial review following issuance of an arbitration award? 8. Does a court sitting in secondary jurisdiction have authority to effectively amend an arbitration award by making rulings that the arbitrators did not make, such as a failure to prosecute a claim in the arbitration?