Where an arbitrator and opposing counsel fail to disclose significant connections, does a party just have to show the 'reasonable impression' of bias to have the award vacated

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2) provides that an arbitration award may be vacated where there was evident partiality by the arbitrators. The Ninth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have adopted the standard that there must exist a “reasonable impression” of possible bias to vacate an arbitration award. While the Second, First, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits have adopted the even stricter standard that a “reasonable person would have to conclude” there was bias. The Fifth Circuit has crafted its own strict standard akin to “actual bias.” In this case, the arbitrator failed to disclose his complete relationship with opposing counsel, including their status as co-faculty members at Duke Law, along with other connections. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Where an arbitrator and opposing counsel fail to disclose significant connections, does a party just have to show the “reasonable impression” of bias to have the award vacated as the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or must the party make a more concrete showing as required by the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits? 2. Should the party seeking vacatur at least be permitted to conduct limited discovery into the undisclosed connections prior to the award being confirmed?