1. Petitioners are foreign corporations that did not sign the arbitration agreement signed by an affiliated entity, did not consent to arbitration, and objected to and did not participate in the arbitration. Before the arbitration, the district court refused to consider the non-signatories' challenge to the arbitration panel's jurisdiction, and after the arbitration, the courts below confirmed the arbitral award without reviewing the threshold question of arbitrability. The question presented is: Whether the district court must independently review a non-signatory's challenge to an arbitral panel's jurisdiction before the arbitration, and at a minimum, before confirmation of the arbitral award.

2. The United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, known as the New York Convention, requires courts to deny the enforcement and recognition of foreign arbitral awards contrary to U.S. public policy or obtained without due process, and requires equal treatment in the process of constituting an arbitral panel. The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208, the New York Convention's implementing statute, permits those defenses in judicial proceedings to confirm or vacate foreign arbitral awards. The question presented is: Whether the due process and public policy defenses under the New York Convention prevent the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards where one side of the dispute appointed a super-majority of the members of the arbitral panel?

Whether the district court must independently review a non-signatory's challenge to an arbitral panel's jurisdiction before the arbitration, and at a minimum, before confirmation of the arbitral award