## Facts

- Soaring Wind Energy, LLC (SWE) was formed as a joint venture to market wind-energy equipment and develop wind farms under a company agreement that included a binding arbitration clause.
- Tang Energy Group, Ltd. (TEG) and related SWE members were aligned on one side of the venture; AVIC International USA, Inc. (also referred to in the dispute with related entities as Catic United States, Inc./AVIC USA) was aligned on the other.
- The arbitration clause provided for a three-arbitrator panel and included a contractual method for selecting the panel.
- A dispute arose between AVIC USA and TEG regarding conduct connected to the venture. The dispute was submitted to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement.
- After the arbitration panel issued a final award in favor of TEG and aligned parties, AVIC USA sought to vacate the award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
- AVIC USA argued that the panel was not selected according to the contract, that the panel was dominated by TEG appointees, and that the contract required a structure of one arbitrator selected by each “side” plus a neutral third arbitrator as a tiebreaker.
- AVIC USA also argued that the panel-selection provision was misread because non-signatories to the arbitration agreement were not permitted to select arbitrators or participate in ways that affected panel formation.
- TEG, SWE, and the aligned parties moved to confirm the award in federal court.

## Issues

1. Whether the arbitration award should be vacated under the FAA because the arbitrators were allegedly not selected in the manner required by the parties’ arbitration agreement, including alleged improper participation by non-signatories and an allegedly improper “three-arbitrator” structure.
2. Whether the award should be vacated because the arbitration panel allegedly exceeded its powers by interpreting the arbitration clause and related contract provisions in a way that allowed the challenged panel composition and related party participation.
3. Whether any asserted unfairness in the arbitration proceedings amounted to misconduct warranting vacatur under the FAA.

## Decision

- The court denied AVIC USA’s motion to vacate and granted the motion to confirm the arbitration award.
- The court held that AVIC USA did not carry its burden to show any statutory ground for vacatur under the FAA.
- The court concluded that the panel’s interpretation of the arbitration agreement and its approach to panel formation and party alignment were within the arbitrators’ authority and were tied to the contract.
- The court rejected the contention that confirming the award would be fundamentally unjust, finding no FAA basis to set the award aside.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court must confirm an arbitration award unless the party opposing confirmation proves a ground for vacatur (or modification/correction) under the FAA.
- Judicial review of an arbitration award is extremely limited; a court does not revisit the merits, reweigh evidence, or vacate for claimed factual or legal error absent a statutory vacatur ground.
- Arbitrators do not “exceed their powers” under FAA § 10(a)(4) merely by adopting a disputed interpretation of the parties’ arbitration clause; the question is whether the decision is anchored in the agreement and the matters submitted.
- Challenges to arbitrator selection succeed only when the record shows a material departure from the contractually required selection method that fits within an FAA vacatur ground; disagreements about how the clause applies in a multiparty setting generally do not justify vacatur.
- Allegations of unfair procedure warrant vacatur only when the complained-of conduct amounts to misconduct that deprived a party of a fundamentally fair hearing, not when the objections concern routine case-management or interpretive rulings.

## Conclusion

The Northern District of Texas confirmed the Soaring Wind arbitration award because AVIC USA’s objections—focused on how the panel was selected, how “sides” and participants were treated, and how the arbitration clause was read—did not establish any narrow statutory basis for vacatur under the FAA, and the panel’s work remained connected to the parties’ agreement and the submission to arbitration.


Soaring Wind Energy, LLC v. Catic United States, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 3d 642 (2018)