Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FILIP, District Judge. Plaintiffs, James Holden and Christine Holden (collectively, the “Holdens”), filed an action in this Court against Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”), Jefferies & Company (“Jefferies”), EPS Solutions Corp. (“EPS”), and others in November 2000. The case was assigned to District Judge Robert W. Gettleman, and on June 1, 2001, Judge Gettleman issued a memorandum opinion and order compelling arbitration of the Holdens’ respective claims against De-loitte and Jefferies. See Hoffman v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 143 F.Supp.2d 995 (N.D.Ill.2001). Thereafter, in late 2001, the Holdens entered into an arbitration agreement (the “Arbitration Agreement”) with Deloitte, Jefferies, and certain other named defendants. This Arbitration Agreement modified the procedures for the arbitration from those specified in the Holden/EPS Stock Purchase Agreement— for example, it substantially expanded the scope of discovery available for the parties, adopted extended time frames in which discovery could be completed, and redesig-nated the manner by which the arbitrators were selected. The Arbitration Panel thereafter held nineteen pre-hearing conferences, with written orders resulting from each, between July 31, 2002 and June 8, 2004. (D.E. 98, Ex. 4 (“Award” or “Arbitration Award”) at 2.) The parties conducted the arbitration in the Summer of 2004, and it involved some fourteen days of hearings, at which the testimony of some thirty-plus witnesses and hundreds of exhibits were introduced. (Award at 2; D.E. 97 at 4.) On October 26, 2004, the Panel issued a ten-page single-spaced Award in which the three-member Panel unanimously rejected the Holdens’ claims. (See Award.) In January 2005, Deloitte filed a motion to confirm the Arbitration Award. (D.E.97.) The Holdens also filed an objection to confirmation and motion to vacate the Award, as well as a motion to reconsider Judge Gettleman’s arbitration order. (D.E.89.) For the reasons stated below, the motion to reconsider Judge Gettle-man’s order and objection to confirmation of the Arbitration Award are respectfully rejected. The motion to confirm the Arbitration Award is granted. I. Background The Holdens filed an action in this district court against Deloitte, Jefferies, EPS, and others in November 2000. The complaint alleges a complex fraudulent scheme conducted by Deloitte, Jefferies, and other named defendants acting in concert with them, to form and operate EPS. The complaint alleges that Deloitte, together with the other defendants, amassed stock to eash-in once EPS instituted its initial pub-lie offering (“IPO”). To raise funds, De-loitte and others allegedly sought to attract successful businesses to provide cash to keep EPS afloat until they could cash-in on the IPO. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Deloitte, acting in concert with the other defendants, induced the Holdens to sell their company to EPS, pursuant to a stock purchase agreement (the “SPA”), by making false statements about EPS’s financial future and publicizing the public offering, even though they knew that EPS was short $10 million in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) and in need of cash. After the suit was filed, Deloitte and Jefferies each moved to stay the action, or in the alternative, for dismissal, and to compel arbitration pursuant to § 7.13 of the Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) between EPS and the Holdens. Section 7.13 of the SPA provides in relevant part that: (a)(i) Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be solely and finally settled by arbitration administrated by the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”).... (D.E. 95, Ex. 1 (SPA § 7.13) (the “Arbitration Clause”).) After extensive briefing from the parties with respect to the requested relief, on June 1, 2001, the Honorable Judge Robert W. Gettleman issued a memorandum opinion and order compelling arbitration of the Holdens’ claims against Deloitte and Jefferies. See Hoffman v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 143 F.Supp.2d 995 (N.D.Ill.2001) (“Hoffman’’ or the “Arbitration Order”). In the Arbitration Order, Judge Gettleman noted that Deloitte and Jefferies were not signatories to the Holden/EPS SPA, but acknowledged and followed a substantial body of federal precedent teaching that non-signatories to agreements that contain arbitration clauses may invoke those clauses as against signatories under certain circumstances. See Hoffman, 143 F.Supp.2d at 1003-05 (discussing various federal circuit precedents). Judge Gettleman found that the essence of the allegations against Deloitte and Jefferies is that they fraudulently induced the Holdens to enter into the SPA. See, e.g., id. at 1004 (stating that the Holdens’ “principal claims against these defendants ... pre-date and are directly related to and arise out of the contracts in question. Thus, ... [Deloitte] and Jefferies have standing to compel arbitration.”). He found that the Holdens were properly required to arbitrate their claims on multiple, independent bases, including common law agency and related principles, equitable estoppel, and third-party beneficiary law. Hoffman, 143 F.Supp.2d at 1004-05. Thereafter, on or about December 19, 2001, the Holdens entered into the Arbitration Agreement with Deloitte, Jefferies, and certain other named defendants. The Arbitration Agreement modifies the arbitration procedures set forth in § 7.13 of the SPA. For example, the agreement requires an arbitral panel consisting of three neutral arbitrators, rather than two party-selected arbitrators who thereafter would select the third member of the panel. (D.E. 98, Ex. 2 ¶ 4; see also id. ¶ 5 (specifying that the three neutral arbitrators shall each be “a practicing attorney or a retired or former judge with at least fifteen (15) years experience with and knowledge of securities law, complex business transactions, and mergers and acquisitions”).) The Arbitration Agreement also substantially expanded the scope of discovery available to the parties and the time period in which the parties and their counsel could complete such discovery. (Id. ¶¶ 7-9, 15.) The parties also waived the right to seek attorneys’ fees based on any judgment, order, ruling, or award entered in the arbitration. (Id. ¶ 19.) The Arbitration Agreement also provides that, by “entering into this Agreement,” the Hol-dens “do not waive any objections to the [Arbitration Order].” (Id. ¶ 2.) On December 20, 2001, the Holdens filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association. (D.E.97, Ex. F.) There were nineteen pre-hearing conferences held, with written orders resulting from each, between July 31, 2002 and June 8, 2004. (Award at 2.) The panel of three neutral arbitrators (the “Panel”) presided over an extensive evidentiary hearing with respect to the Holdens’ claims, which took place over fourteen days from June 18, 2004 to August 2, 2004. (Id.) The parties introduced testimony from over thirty witnesses (whether live or by deposition) and they introduced several hundred exhibits. At the conclusion of the arbitration, each party submitted seventy pages of post-hearing briefs and response briefs, and the parties orally argued their respective positions to the Panel. (Id.) Ultimately, on October 26, 2004, the Panel issued a ten-page statement of Awards and Reasons, in which the Panel unanimously ruled that, because the Holdens failed to prove an essential element of loss causation, De-loitte was not liable with respect to any of the Holdens’ claims. (See Award.) Several months prior to issuing the Arbitration Award with respect to Deloitte, the same Panel dismissed Jefferies from the arbitration proceedings as a result of a settlement reached between the Holdens and Jefferies. The Holdens and Jefferies sought the assistance of the Panel and the district court in effectuating that settlement. (D.E.97, Ex. A.) The case is currently before this Court on Deloitte’s motion to confirm the Arbitration Award. The Holdens have filed an objection to confirmation of the Arbitration Award, a motion to vacate the Arbitration Award, and a motion to reconsider Judge Gettleman’s Arbitration Order and to set the case for a jury trial. As explained below, the reconsideration motion concerning the Arbitration Order and motion to vacate the Arbitration Award are denied, and the motion to confirm the Award is granted. II. Reconsideration of the Arbitration Order A. Standard of Review The Court first addresses the Holdens’ motion to reconsider Judge Gettleman’s June 2001 order finding that arbitration was appropriate (also, “Reconsideration Motion”). The Reconsideration Motion implicates two lines of teaching regarding the applicable standard of review by this Court. First, under any circumstances, the appropriate scope for a reconsideration motion is a limited one. Precedent instructs that a motion to reconsider is appropriate only when the court has “patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension. A further basis for a motion to reconsider would be a controlling or significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to the Court.” Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As the Seventh Circuit has counseled, “[s]uch problems rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.” Id. at 1191 (7th Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A reconsideration motion should not be used to reargue or rehash arguments previously presented. See Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir.2000) (“[The] motions for reconsideration did little more than rehash old arguments. Rule 59 is not a vehicle for reargu-ing previously rejected motions and, as that is what Beverley attempted to do, we affirm the District Court’s denial of those motions.”); accord, e.g., Neal v. Newspaper Holdings, Inc., 349 F.3d 363, 368 (7th Cir.2003). Nor are reconsideration motions properly used to advance new arguments that could have been made before so as to attempt to avoid a waiver-bar on appeal. See, e.g., Caisse Nationale De Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir.1996) (“Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for ... arguing matters that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion.”) (collecting cases); Green v. Whiteco Indus., Inc., 17 F.3d 199, 201 n. 4 (7th Cir.1994) (“[RJaising this argument for the first time in the motion for reconsideration is not adequate to preserve the issue for appeal and definitely waives it.”) (citing Publishers Resource Inc. v. Walker-Davis Publications, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir.1985)). In short, such motions serve a “limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Caisse Nationale, 90 F.3d at 1269 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In addition, because of the particular procedural history of this case, which involves a transfer between district courts, a second line of authority is relevant and bears on the standard of review. Specifically, this case was originally before Judge Gettleman, and it came to this Court, along with a series of related cases, via reassignment in 2004 after this Court took the bench. Under such circumstances, the Holdens’ Reconsideration Motion implicates a “variant of the law of the case doctrine that relates to the re-examination of a prior ruling by a different member of the same court.... ” Best v. Shell Oil Co., 107 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir.1997). The Seventh Circuit has instructed that “the presumption [in such cases] is that the earlier rulings will stand” and that prior rulings should be disturbed only “for compelling reasons (such as new controlling law or clear error).” Id.; accord, e.g., Fujisawa Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Kapoor, 115 F.3d 1332, 1339 (7th Cir.1997) (the “second judge in a case in which there has been a reassignment [is] to abide by the rulings of the first judge unless some new development, such as a new appellate decision, convinces him that his predecessor’s ruling was incorrect”). The “doctrine in these circumstances reflects the rightful expectation of litigants that a change of judges mid-way through a case will not mean going back to square one.” Best, 107 F.3d at 546. With the Seventh Circuit’s teachings in mind, the Court turns to the Holdens’ Reconsideration Motion. For the reasons stated, that motion is respectfully denied. B. Analysis The issue before Judge Gettleman was whether the fact that Deloitte is not a signatory to the SPA defeats its right to compel arbitration pursuant to the SPA’s Arbitration Clause. Because precedent teaches that analysis of such questions obviously depends on the specific facts presented by a case, the Court first describes the allegations of the Holdens. Accord Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency, L.L.C., 210 F.3d 524, 527 (5th Cir.2000); MS Dealer Serv. Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942, 947-48 (11th Cir.1999) (citations omitted). 1. The Alleged Scheme and Conspiracy The operative complaint at the time the arbitration issue was briefed before Judge Gettleman alleged a “complex fraudulent scheme conducted by [Deloitte] and Jeffer-ies, and others acting in concert with them, to form and operate EPS.... ” Hoffman, 143 F.Supp.2d at 997. In that complaint, in summary, the Holdens alleged that De-loitte, along with Jefferies and others, engaged in a conspiracy, and a “scheme or artifice to defraud” in violation of the civil RICO statute, and “used EPS to fraudulently induce the Holdens and other business owners to sell their companies to EPS,” as the Holdens did in the SPA. (D.E. 1 at 2; see also, e.g., id. ¶¶ 89, 114— 16.) The Holdens also alleged that the Defendants, including EPS, Deloitte, Jef-feries, and others, endeavored together to commit a federal racketeering offense, the predicate offenses of which included acts of criminal fraud, including the preparation of financial information and statements that were attachments to the SPA. (E.g., id. ¶¶ 69-71, 89-90.) More specifically, the complaint alleged that the coconspirators included Deloitte, Jefferies, EPS, and Christopher Massey— who was alleged to variously be a “senior partner” at Deloitte, as well as “CEO of EPS,” and, in fact, was alleged to hold both posts at the same time for a substantial period of the operative events. (E.g., id. ¶ 7.) The defendants, including Deloitte, were alleged to have directed and controlled EPS (see id. ¶ 96 (alleging that Deloitte, Massey and the other defendants “conducted the business of EPS”), and the complaint further alleged that “each of the defendants ... drafted, reviewed, ratified, and/or approved the misleading statements, releases, and reports of and about EPS and its component parts” that the Holdens alleged were fraudulent. (Id. ¶ 100.) These allegedly false statements included, inter alia, information that was attached as Schedule 3.6 and Exhibit B to the SPA. (See, e.g., id. ¶ 69 (alleging that Deloitte and Massey “caused EPS to [falsely] represent to the Holdens in writing” certain financial information that was incorporated and contained in Schedule 3.6 of the SPA); id. ¶ 70 (similar); id. ¶ 71 (discussing allegedly false financial statements by Deloitte, Massey, and others made orally and in documents that were, inter alia, incorporated as Schedule 3.6 of the SPA (Ex. H to the complaint), and Exhibit B to the SPA (Ex. J to the complaint)).) In this regard, the complaint specifically identifies, as racketeering predicate acts of alleged criminal fraud, the communication to the Holdens of documents which included, Schedule 3.6 to the SPA (Ex. H to the complaint) and Exhibit B to the Stock Purchase Agreement (Ex. J to the complaint). The complaint alleges that “[Deloitte] and each of the defendants conspired with each other,” and identifies the goal of the conspiracy as, inter alia, inducing sellers like the Holdens to “sell their companies” to EPS, as was done for the Holdens via the SPA. (Id. ¶ 114; see also id. ¶ 90 (“Each of the predicate acts had the same purpose, to induce the business owners to sell their businesses to EPS; [and] the same participants, defendants herein”).) The complaint sought over $110,000,000 for the Holdens, based in substantial part on the negotiated price and value purportedly reflected in the SPA. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 80, 88 (claiming damages “to the Holdens of $110,000,000” based on, inter alia, “the EPS price of over $100 million” in the SPA).) In fact, the Holdens sought to treble that figure pursuant to the RICO count, and claimed in excess of $300,000,000 on such basis. (See id. ¶ 97(a) (seeking treble damages in excess of $300,000,000, based on figures allegedly-reflected in the SPA).) 2. Legal Analysis a. The Holdens Do Not Make A Serious Claim That Reconsideration Relief Is Appropriate Under Applicable Standards The Holdens’ Reconsideration Motion is denied for the threshold reason that they do not make a serious challenge that reversal is warranted under the demanding standards applicable to such motions, particularly in instances where the case has been transferred to a new district judge after the ruling in question was issued. The Holdens do not claim that Judge Get-tleman patently misunderstood them, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties in connection with the various arbitration motions at play, or made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension. Furthermore, although the Holdens make some attempt to argue that decisions which were issued since Judge Gettleman’s ruling demonstrate the manifest nature of his error, the Holdens’ arguments, fairly construed, are that Judge Gettleman was wrong based on long-settled law, which is overwhelmingly the authority that the Hol-dens cite. (See, e.g., Holden Mem. at 3 (“This was error because the Supreme Court has taught for years that....”); D.E. 101 (“Holden Reply”) at 3 (citing, inter alia, Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1108, 63 L.Ed.2d 348 (1980), and Gratz v. Claughton, 187 F.2d 46 (2d Cir.1951)). Because the heart of the Holdens’ arguments do not qualify under applicable standards for reconsideration motions, or for motions governing review by one district judge of another’s prior ruling, the Reconsideration Motion is respectfully denied on that basis. b. Judge Gettleman’s Ruling Appears Correct In Any Event In addition, this Court declines to overturn Judge Gettleman’s Arbitration Order because it appears to be correct. As explained, Judge Gettleman ruled that the Holdens were required to arbitrate their claims on multiple, independent bases, including common law agency and related principles, equitable estoppel, and third-party beneficiary law. Hoffman, 143 F.Supp.2d at 1004-05. These bases, and the first two, in particular, as they are most clearly correct in this Court’s view, are discussed below. i. General Principles As an initial matter, the parties disputed the relevance of the SPA’s choice of law clause, which provides that the agreement shall be governed by California law. (SPA at § 7.4.) The Holdens argued that California law should apply to the issue of whether non-parties can enforce the SPA’s Arbitration Clause, whereas Deloitte argued for application of federal law. Ultimately, Judge Gettleman concluded that state law was not relevant because there is no dispute regarding contract formation, validity, or interpretation, and federal substantive law governs the question of arbitrability. Hoffman, 143 F.Supp.2d at 1004 n. 4. In reaching this result, Judge Gettleman followed federal appellate authority — see Int’l Paper Co. v. Schwabedissen Maschinen & Anlagen GMBH, 206 F.3d 411, 417 n. 4 (4th Cir.2000) (“Because the determination of whether International Paper, a nonsignatory, is bound by the Wood-Schwabedissen contract presents no state law question of contract formation or validity, we look to the ‘federal substantive law of arbitrability’ to resolve this question”) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Co., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983))— a course followed by other federal courts. See, e.g., Fujian Pacific Elec. Co. Ltd. v. Bechtel Power Corp., No. C 04-3126 MHP, 2004 WL 2645974, at *3 (N.D.Cal. Nov.19, 2004). The Holdens argue, with considerable ardor, that Judge Gettleman erred because he should have looked to California law to determine this question. While the Hol-dens cite many California decisions about various legal principles, their research apparently did not uncover California appellate authority which expressly agreed with Judge Gettleman’s analysis on this matter and rendered a decision on that basis. See Metalclad Corp. v. Ventana Envtl. Org. P’Ship, 109 Cal.App.4th 1705, 1712-13, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 (2003) (“Whether [defendant] Ventana, a nonsignatory to that agreement, may rely on it to compel [signatory/plaintiff] Metalclad to arbitration is answered by federal law, not state law”) (citing and quoting Schwabedissen, 206 F.3d at 417 n. 4). Metalclad proceeded to note the “wide acceptance” in the federal courts of the teachings of cases such as MS Dealer Service Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942 (11th Cir.1999), the case that Judge Gettleman principally relied on in ordering Deloitte and the Holdens to arbitration on various independent grounds. See Metalclad, 109 Cal.App.4th at 1714, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 (collecting numerous federal appellate authorities). Metalclad stated that it agreed with the federal courts’ teachings embodied in cases such as MS Dealer. See id., 109 Cal.App.4th at 1716, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 (“The 11th Circuit’s decisions in SumMst and MS Dealer persuade us equitable estoppel should be applied here.”). Metalclad proceeded to explain why signatory-plaintiff Metalclad was required to arbitrate its claims against non-signatory defendant Ventana Environmental Organizational Partnership, and explained that such estoppel was appropriate because, inter alia, Metalclad agreed to arbitration in the underlying written contract but now, in effect, seeks the benefit of that contract in the form of damages from Ventana while avoiding its arbitration provision. Estoppel prevents this. Id., 109 Cal.App.4th at 1717, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 328. Metalclad also rejected the contention that arbitration was not required because the signatory-plaintiff cast its claims in tort rather than in terms of breach of contract. See id. at 1717-18, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 (“it is well established that a party may not avoid broad language in an arbitration clause by attempting to cast its complaint in tort rather than contract”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court will discuss later why, in its view at least, Judge Gettleman did not err in finding that the Holdens were required to arbitrate their claims. For present purposes, however, the salient point is that the Holdens’ repeated contention that Judge Gettleman erred by applying “federal cases under the FAA instead of state law to the question whether nonsignatory Deloitte could invoke the arbitration clause of the SPA” (Holden Mem. at 3) fails to acknowledge that California authority agrees with Judge Gettleman on this point. This agreement in California authority renders much of the Holdens’ extended discussions of other areas of California law effectively, with all respect, of limited, if any, relevance. The Holdens also argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in EEOC v. Waffle House, 534 U.S. 279, 122 S.Ct. 754, 151 L.Ed.2d 755 (2002), revealed the patent error of Judge Gettleman’s ruling, although they certainly did not make any argument to that effect in the years after Waffle House was decided and the case was still with Judge Gettleman. In any event, the Holdens’ citation of Waffle House does not convince this Court that Judge Gettleman erred. Waffle House dealt with the question of whether the EEOC could be barred as a government regulator from electing to pursue victim-specific relief on behalf of an employee who had agreed to arbitrate claims with an employer, where the EEOC had never entered into such an agreement. See id., 534 U.S. at 282, 122 S.Ct. 754. The decision substantially turned on a careful review of “the provisions of Title VII defining the EEOC’s authority....” Id. at 285-86, 122 S.Ct. 754; accord, e.g., id. at 296, 122 S.Ct. 754 (“To hold otherwise would undermine the detailed enforcement scheme created by Congress [for the EEOC] ....”); id. at 297, 122 S.Ct. 754 (the Federal Arbitration Act does not authorize the courts “to second-guess the agency’s [EEOC’s] judgment concerning which of the remedies authorized by law that it shall seek in any given case”); id. at 291, 122 S.Ct. 754 (stating that “[i]f it were true that the EEOC could prosecute its claim only with Baker’s [the employee’s] consent, or if its prayer for relief could be dictated by Baker,” the result might be different). The decision — which held that the non-signatory EEOC could not be bound in its enforcement authority — did not address nor purport to speak to the MS Dealer line of cases, and the carefully calibrated language of the decision does not suggest that it implicitly displaced or rejected that widely accepted line of appellate authority. See, e.g., id. at 297, 122 S.Ct. 754 (“The only issue before this Court is whether the fact that Baker has signed a mandatory arbitration agreement limits the remedies available to the EEOC”); accord, e.g., In the Matter of Volpert, 110 F.3d 494, 497 (7th Cir.1997) (discussing the well-settled principle that “ ‘[questions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents’ ”) (quoting Webster v. Fall, 266 U.S. 507, 511, 45 S.Ct. 148, 69 L.Ed. 411 (1925)). Moreover, and independently, Waffle House dealt with a materially different factual scenario than the one presented here. Waffle House involved an attempt by a signatory defendant that was attempting to compel a plaintiff (and government regulator, the EEOC) to arbitration based on a contract that the regulator/plaintiff had never signed. This case, by way of contrast, deals with a non-signatory defendant seeking to compel a signatory plaintiff to arbitration. In addition, the allegations in this case contend: that Deloitte is part of an extensive conspiracy and racketeering scheme with the signatory defendant EPS (and therefore is putatively accountable to the Holdens on such basis for the acts of EPS); that various allegedly fraudulent statements were conveyed and contained in attachments to the SPA; and that the Holdens are entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages based on the valuation numbers purportedly reflected in the SPA. Federal courts have noted the distinction between this setting — i.e., where the non-signatory defendant is seeking to compel a signatory plaintiff to arbitration— and the one presented in Waffle House, and distinguished the case on that basis. For example, the First Circuit recently cited Waffle House for the general rule that “a contract cannot bind a non party” but stated there are exceptions to the rule, such as the estoppel theory that Judge Gettleman applied. Medical Air Tech. Corp. v. Marwan Inv., Inc., 303 F.3d 11, 18 (1st Cir.2002) (citing Grigson, 210 F.3d at 527-31; MS Dealer, 177 F.3d at 947-48, and Hughes Masonry Co., Inc., v. Greater Clark County Sch. Bldg. Corp., 659 F.2d 836, 841 & n. 9 (7th Cir.1981)). In another case, a district court distinguished Waffle House as addressing only situations in which non-signatories are compelled to arbitrate and not cases where, as here, the non-signatory seeks to compel a signatory party to arbitrate. See Gambardella v. Pentec, Inc., 218 F.Supp.2d 237, 242 (D.Conn.2002). The Gambardella court cited Choctaw Generation Limited Partnership. v. American Home Assurance Co., 271 F.3d 403, 406 (2d Cir.2001), as noting the distinction between these situations and concluded that Waffle House “does not alter this analysis.” Id. at 242 (“[T]he issue here is not whether non-signatories to the agreement can be compelled to arbitrate; rather, it is whether these non-signatories may compel plaintiff, admittedly a party to the contract, to arbitrate”). This Court sees no basis to read Waffle House as displacing the long line of authority concerning third-party enforcement of arbitration clauses against signatories that is reflected in federal appellate cases such as MS Dealer (and upon which Get-tleman principally relied) and the California Court of Appeals’ decision in Metal-clad. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to examine the various grounds on which Judge Gettleman concluded that the Hol-dens were required to arbitrate their claims against Deloitte. ii. Equitable Estoppel Judge Gettleman held that equitable estoppel principles directed that the Holdens fairly were required to arbitrate their claims against Deloitte. See Hoffman, 143 F.Supp.2d at 1004-05. Judge Gettleman held that equitable estoppel was appropriate because it applies where “the signatory [here, the Holdens] ‘must rely on the terms of the written agreement in asserting its claim’ against a non-signatory. Thus, ‘[w]hen each of a signatory’s claims against a nonsignatory ‘makes reference to’ or ‘presumes the existence of the written agreement, the signatory’s claims arise out of and relate directly to the written agreement and arbitration is appropriate.’ ” Id. at 1004-05 (quoting MS Dealer Serv. Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942, 947 (11th Cir.1999)); accord, e.g., Grigson, 210 F.3d at 527 (quoting MS Dealer, 177 F.3d at 947). Judge Gettle-man also held that equitable estoppel applied because the Holdens’ case presented a situation where “ ‘the signatory [here, the Holdens] raises allegations of ... substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the nonsignatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract.’ ” Id. (quoting MS Dealer, 177 F.3d at 947); accord, e.g., Grigson, 210 F.3d at 527 (quoting MS Dealer, 177 F.3d at 947). As Judge Gettleman found, this case falls within each of these categories of equitable estoppel. Hoffman, 143 F.Supp.2d at 1004-05. The Court will discuss the “concerted misconduct” ruling at greater length below, in this Court’s discussion of agency and conspiracy principles, as the discussion is equally if not more apt there than here. See, e.g., United States v. Lindemann, 85 F.3d 1232, 1238 (7th Cir.1996) (discussing the “basic agency principle that acts by one conspirator are chargeable against all those who conspired”). Suffice to say for present purposes that there is no question that the Holdens alleged “concerted misconduct” by Deloitte and the other defendants. MS Dealer, 177 F.3d at 947. The complaint charged that “[Deloitte] and each of the defendants conspired with each other,” and identified the goal of the conspiracy as inducing parties like the Holdens to “sell their companies” to EPS, as was done for the Holdens through the SPA. (D.E. 1 ¶ 114; see also id. ¶ 90 (“Each of the predicate acts had the same purpose, to induce the business owners to sell their businesses to EPS; [and] the same participants, defendants herein”).) The Holdens also charged that Deloitte and others, including EPS, schemed together to commit a federal racketeering offense, with the Holdens specifically identifying as predicate offenses the preparation of financial statements that were attached to and were part of the SPA. (E.g., id. ¶¶ 69-71, 89-90.) In raising such allegations, the Holdens cannot “have it both ways” and advance claims alleging concerted misconduct with signatory defendants while simultaneously seeking to ignore an arbitration agreement that they have made with the signatory. See, e.g., Grigson, 210 F.3d at 528 (citing MS Dealer, 177 F.3d at 947, and Hughes Masonry Co. v. Greater Clark County Sch. Bldg. Corp., 659 F.2d 836, 838-39 (7th Cir.1981)). In addition, the Court agrees with Judge Gettleman that the Holdens’ claims “all make reference to and presume the existence of the written agreemen[t]” that contains the arbitration clause. Hoffman, 143 F.Supp.2d at 1005 (citing MS Dealer). In this regard, the Court notes that, as the Holdens point out, some federal authorities have cautioned against requiring arbitration simply because a signatory’s claims make some indirect or non-essential reference to the contract with the arbitration clause. See R.J. Griffin & Co., 384 F.3d at 161 (“Our job here is to determine whether the Association is seeking a direct benefit from the general construction contract between Drake and Griffin.”) (emphasis added). But one need not reach out into the periphery of the possible applications or readings of MS Dealer to conclude that Judge Gettleman got this particular result correct. The Holdens’ claims are fundamentally related to the SPA that contained the arbitration agreement. In fact, some of the specific acts of alleged fraud (highlighted as alleged racketeering predicates) are false statements that are contained in documents that were attached to and are part of the SPA. {See, e.g., D.E. 1 ¶¶ 69-71.) In addition, the Holdens allege that a central goal of the conspiracy and claimed fraud scheme was to induce individuals like the Holdens to “sell their companies” to EPS, as the Holdens did through the SPA. {Id. ¶ 114; see also id. ¶ 90 (“Each of the predicate acts had the same purpose, to induce the business owners to sell their businesses to EPS; [and] the same participants, defendants herein”).) And the Hol-dens’ case sought to hold the Defendants’ liable for the consideration the Holdens believed they should have gained through and under the SPA, or some $100,000,000. {See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 80, 88.) In this regard, the Holdens, in their principal post-arbitration brief, sought damages under what they described as “[t]he benefit-of-the-bargain’ model.” Claimants’ PostAHearing Memorandum at 41. According to the Holdens, “the benefit of the bargain theory enforces the transaction and compels the defendant to give what was bargained for, or its value.” Id. (emphasis in original). Under such circumstances, the Holdens are certainly not seeking some indirect benefit from, or making some indirect reference to, the SPA. Nor need arbitration be ordered simply because their claims contemplate that another contractual relationship might coincide with Deloitte’s alleged wrongs. Instead, a central goal of the alleged conspiracy and scheme was the effectuation of the SPA, in which multiple alleged fraudulent statements were made for which Deloitte is allegedly responsible, and by which the fraud was actually completed. In this case, the claims of the Holdens are intertwined with the SPA and the contents of it. Moreover, the Holdens seek to leverage the monetary terms of the SPA as the basis for their substantial damages claim. Under such circumstances, equitable estoppel, under considerable authority, is appropriate. See, e.g., MS Dealer, 177 F.3d at 947-48; Grigson, 210 F.3d at 527; Hughes Masonry, 659 F.2d at 838-39 & 841 n. 9. Notably, the teachings of the California Court of Appeals also would support application of estoppel so as to require arbitration under such circumstances. See Metalclad, 109 Cal.App.4th at 1717, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 (“Metalclad agreed to arbitration in the underlying written contract but now, in effect, seeks the benefit of that contract in the form of damages from Ventana [ie., the non-signatory] while avoiding its arbitration provision. Estoppel prevents this.”); see also Hughes Masonry, 659 F.2d at 839 (“In short, [plaintiff] cannot have it both ways. [It] cannot rely on the contract when it works to its advantage, and repudiate it when it works to [its] disadvantage.”) (internal citations omitted). Like the MS Dealer court, the Court acknowledges that the Holdens cast their claims against Deloitte as tort claims rather than contract claims. “However, it is well established that a party may not avoid broad language in an arbitration clause by attempting to cast its complaint in tort rather than contract.” 177 F.3d at 948 n. 4 (citing Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 10 F.3d 753, 758 (11th Cir.1993); accord, e.g., Sweet Dreams Unlimited, Inc. v. Dial-A-Mattress Int’l, Ltd., 1 F.3d 639, 643 (7th Cir.1993) (teaching that the Seventh Circuit has “routinely held that a party may not avoid a contractual arbitration clause merely by casting its complaint in tort”) (collecting cases). The Holdens’ claims are “intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.” Hughes Masonry, 659 F.2d at 841 n. 9. Under such circumstances, and for the reasons explained above, courts have widely found that equitable estoppel fairly requires the signatory to arbitrate its claims. Moreover, failure to require arbitration would allow for arbitration agreements to be effectively eviscerated via conspiracy counts and allegations of concerted misconduct that in effect would put a signatory on trial, notwithstanding the agreement to arbitrate. See, e.g., MS Dealer, 177 F.3d at 947; Hughes Masonry, 659 F.2d at 841 n. 9. In light of the substantial authority supporting Deloitte’s right to compel the Hol-dens to arbitrate their claims pursuant to the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the Court finds no basis to reconsider Judge Gettleman’s Arbitration Order on this point. iii. Agency Law and Related Principles Judge Gettleman also found, independently, that the Holdens fairly were required to arbitrate their claims under agency and related principles. See Hoffman, 143 F.Supp.2d at 1005. This ruling also appears to be correct. Federal courts repeatedly have recognized that agency law and related principles can permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories. See Grigson, 210 F.3d at 527 (arbitration clause can be enforced against signatory when complaint “ ‘raises allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the nonsignatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract’ ”) (quoting MS Dealer, 177 F.3d at 947); accord, e.g., MS Dealer, 177 F.3d at 947 (“[U]nder agency or related principles, the relationship between the signatory and non-signatory defendants is sufficiently close that only by permitting the non-signatory to invoke arbitration may evisceration of the underlying arbitration agreement between the signatories be avoided.”); Letizia v. Prudential Bache Sec., Inc., 802 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir.1986); In re Oil Spill by Amoco Cadiz, 659 F.2d 789, 794-95 (7th Cir.1981) (requiring non-signatory plaintiff to arbitrate claim); Kahn v. Peak, No. 91 C7148, 1992 WL 142297, at *3 (N.D.Ill. June 18, 1992) (Plunkett, J.) (plaintiff alleged that president was corporation’s agent for purposes of liability; therefore he could not claim that non-signatory president was not corporation’s agent so as to avoid arbitration of claim that misrepresentations in offering memorandum led plaintiff to enter into business agreement with the corporation that contained arbitration clause). In assessing whether the plaintiff is advancing allegations that implicate doctrines concerning agency and concerted misconduct, cases have looked to the allegations of the plaintiffs complaint — see Grigson, 210 F.3d at 527; MS Dealer, 177 F.3d at 947-48 (citations omitted) — and have not asked whether the non-signatory defendant concedes it is, for example, a coconspirator or agent of a putative malefactor. The Holdens’ complaint was replete with allegations of concerted misconduct by De-loitte and the signatory EPS, as well as with allegations that Deloitte was acting on behalf of EPS. See, e.g., D.E. 1 ¶ 69 (alleging that Deloitte and Massey “caused EPS to [falsely] represent to the Holdens in writing” certain fraudulent financial information that was embodied in, inter alia, Schedule 3.6 of the SPA); id. ¶ 70 (similar); id. ¶ 96 (alleging that Deloitte, Massey and the other defendants “conducted the business of EPS”); id. ¶ 76 (alleging that Deloitte, Jefferies, Massey, and others “induced EPS to falsely represent” certain financial information about EPS); id. ¶ 117 (alleging that Deloitte is liable for fiduciary breach “as both promoters of EPS and agents of the prospective investors, including the Holdens”); id. ¶ 100 (alleging that “each of the defendants ... drafted, reviewed, ratified, and/or approved the misleading statements, releases, and reports of and about EPS and its component parts”); id. ¶ 114 (alleging that “[Deloitte] and each of the defendants conspired with each other” and identifying as the goal of the conspiracy as inducing the Holdens, among others, to “sell their companies” to EPS, as the Holdens did by the SPA); id. ¶ 102 (alleging that “Defendants, individually and in concert, directly and indirectly, engaged in and employed acts and a fraudulent scheme ... ”). Accordingly, Judge Gettleman concluded that the facts alleged in the Holdens’ complaint supported the conclusion that “[Deloitte] acted as EPS’s agent [] at the time some or all of the alleged fraudulent misconduct occurred” and that “the relationship between EPS and [Deloitte] [] was so obviously intertwined that only by allowing the non-signatories to invoke arbitration would evisceration of the agreements be avoided.” Hoffman, 143 F.Supp.2d at 1004 (relying on MS Dealer). The Holdens argument as to why Judge Gettleman purportedly erred in this aspect of his order is, with all respect, not a substantial one. First, the Holdens argue that agency and coordinated misconduct principles are not applicable because De-loitte does not concede that it is a cocon-spirator or agent of other alleged malefactors. As indicated, federal precedent has looked to the allegations in the plaintiffs complaint, and has not required the defendant to concede such a substantive issue to advance its arbitration arguments. The Holdens cite no federal authority in support of their position on this point, but instead cite two intermediate appellate decisions from Illinois. (See Holden Mem. at 8 (citing Peach v. CIM Ins. Corp., 352 Ill.App.3d 691, 287 Ill.Dec. 701, 816 N.E.2d 668 (2004); Ervin v. Nokia, Inc., 349 Ill.App.3d 508, 285 Ill.Dec. 714, 812 N.E.2d 534 (2004).) The Holdens, however, contend that California law is relevant to the arbitration question, so the relevance of these citations, even on the Holdens’ view of things, is not apparent. Moreover, those decisions reject application of the entire line of federal precedent embodied in cases like MS Dealer and Grigson — see, e.g., Ervin, 349 Ill.App.3d at 516, 285 Ill.Dec. 714, 812 N.E.2d 534 — a position that is in conflict with those federal cases and the view of the courts of the State of California. See, e.g., Metalclad Corp., 109 Cal.App.4th at 1712-14, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 328. As a result, these Illinois cases do not warrant a different result than the one reached by Judge Gettleman. In their reply brief regarding their reconsideration motion, the Holdens for the first time suggest that the agency/concerted misconduct basis for Judge Gettleman’s ruling is infirm because it conflates the concept of an “agent” with that of a “promoter,” who bears fiduciary duties because of the promoter’s access to confidential information. (Holden Reply at 3.) This suggestion is no basis to displace Judge Gettleman’s ruling. First, this argument appears for the first time in a reply brief — and to a reconsideration motion' — notwithstanding that Judge Gettleman clearly ruled that arbitration was warranted on the basis of the agency/concerted misconduct allegations in his opinion. Making an argument for the first time in a reply brief, as a matter of process, is insufficient to present an argument in a trial court. See FTC v. World Media Brokers, 415 F.3d 758, 766 (7th Cir.2005) (collecting cases). Second, the allegations in the complaint are not presented with any sense that the Holdens are defining Deloitte (or anyone else) as a “promoter” — with that term bearing a specific or unique legal meaning' — -and that the Holdens are thereby seeking to trigger some relatively arcane legal liability as compared to the liability imposed by ordinary agency and cocon-spirator principles. As mentioned, the complaint is replete with allegations of concerted misconduct (there is a specific conspiracy count), and the Defendants are repeatedly alleged to have schemed together to defraud the Holdens. The complaint also alleges, by way of example, that the EPS roll-up was being sponsored by Deloitte (D.E. 1 ¶ 24), and that Deloitte “caused EPS to [falsely] represent to the Holdens in writing” certain financial information about the company, including information reflected in attachments to the SPA. (Id. ¶ 69; see also id. ¶¶ 70-71). Whatever particular or additional duties may attend to a “promoter,” those duties are not the liability concepts that the Hol-dens invoke in the complaint — or at least certainly not the liability concepts they primarily and repeatedly invoked, such as conspiracy and agency concepts. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis to reconsider Judge Gettleman’s decision that Deloitte can enforce the Arbitration Clause under agency and related principles. iv. Third-Party Beneficiary Theory Judge Gettleman also found that “the Holden contract ... contain[s] a provision whereby the sellers acknowledge for the benefit of’ Deloitte that Deloitte “was not related to EPS and that EPS and the individuals related to EPS with whom the sellers have dealt, have acted and will act on behalf of EPS and not ... [Deloitte]. These provisions were intended to confer benefit on” Deloitte, “and under MS Dealer, 177 F.3d at 947, appear to give ... [Deloitte] ... [an] additional right to enforce the agreement.” Hoffman, 143 F.Supp.2d at 1005. In the absence of the Court’s rulings above concerning the other bases for Judge Gettleman’s order, the Court would address this additional basis for Judge Gettleman’s ruling at greater length. Nonetheless, the following discussion is likely warranted and sufficient. As Judge Gettleman alluded, numerous federal decisions have permitted third-party beneficiaries to enforce arbitration clauses. See, e.g., Collins v. Int’l Dairy Queen, Inc., 2 F.Supp.2d 1465, 1468, 1471 (M.D.Ga.1998); KMart Corp. v. Balfour Beatty, Inc., 994 F.Supp. 634, 635-37 (D.Vi.1998). In MS Dealer, the Eleventh Circuit stated that nonsignatories to a contract are allowed to compel arbitration “when the parties to a contract together agree ... to confer certain benefits thereunder upon a third party, affording that third party rights of action against them under the contract.” 177 F.3d at 947 (citation omitted). The Holdens contend that the provisions of the SPA should be interpreted pursuant to California law, rather than federal law, to determine whether Deloitte can invoke the SPA between the Holdens and EPS. Notably, although the Holdens principally cite three California decisions in support of their contention, those decisions appears to be materially distinguishable and, with all respect, less relevant than Metalclad Corp. v. Ventana Envtl. Org. P’Ship, 109 Cal.App.4th 1705, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 (2003). That decision, as explained, held that whether a nonsignatory to an agreement that contained an arbitration clause may rely on it to compel a signatory to arbitration “is answered by federal law, not state law.” Id. at 1712, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 (citation omitted). Metalclad then proceeded to analyze and apply a number of the same decisions that Judge Gettleman did in ordering the Holdens to arbitration, including MS Dealer. None of this is particularly helpful to the Holdens. In addition, the California cases the Hol-dens principally cite seem less relevant than the holding of the California Court of Appeals in Metalclad. The principal case the Holdens cite is Whiteside v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 101 Cal.App.4th 693, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 580 (2002). (See Holden Mem. at 5-6; Reply (D.E.101) at 3). In White-side, the court refused to allow Tenet Healthcare Corporation (“Tenet”) to enforce a fee-shifting provision in a contract between it and Blue Cross/Blue Shield against an insured individual who became embroiled with Tenet in a payment/reimbursement dispute concerning medical treatment, when Tenet sought some $180,000 in attorneys fees from the insured individual. Whiteside did not involve any disputed arbitration question, and the factual scenario in the case is quite far afield from this one. Moreover, the Whiteside court noted that Tenet had, in the contract at issue, “disclaimed any obligations with regard to its handling of legal matters arising between it and Blue Shield subscribers, whereas elsewhere it had agreed to arbitrate disputes between it and Blue Shield and that the prevailing party in proceedings to enforce the agreement would be entitled to attorneys fees.” Id. at 709, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 580. Thus, even as to the fees question actually at issue, Whiteside understood Tenet to have effectively dropped any claimed right to attorneys fees from health insureds who lost in litigation, and that neither insureds nor Tenet could recover fees in such circumstances. See id. Bancomer, S.A. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 44 Cal.App.4th 1450, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 435 (1996), which the Holdens also cite, likewise is not a case about arbitration. Rather, it denied mandamus relief to a litigant who wanted to invoke a forum selection clause so as to require litigation of a dispute in the courts of Mexico. Bancomer declined to order mandamus relief, and noted that “[i]nci-dent to the terms of the purchase agreement [to which Bancomer was not a party], Bancomer was named as the trustee. That is not enough. A review of the purchase agreement and the circumstances under which it was negotiated and signed fails to demonstrate that Koster and Reilly intended Bancomer to benefit from their transaction.” Id. at 1459, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 435. In the case sub judice, however, as Judge Gettleman noted, Section 2.30 of the SPA “contain[ed] a provision whereby the sellers acknowledge for the benefit of’ De-loitte, that Deloitte “was not related to EPS and that EPS and the individuals related to EPS with whom the sellers have dealt, have acted and will act on behalf of EPS and not ... [Deloitte], These provisions were intended to confer benefit on” Deloitte. Hoffman, 143 F.Supp.2d at 1005. The clear intent of Section 2.30 (unlike the contract in Bancomer) was to confer benefit on Deloitte, and thus Ban-comer would seem to involve a materially different situation. Furthermore, Ban-comer specifically noted that in that case, the third-party bank was alleged to have acted alone, there were no assertions of fraudulent conduct by any other person or entity, and there was no evidence of any intertwining business relationship between the third-party bank and any party to the contract at issue. 44 Cal.App.4th at 1458-59, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 435. That reasoning would appear to suggest that enforcement of the arbitration provision against the Holdens is appropriate as to them claims against Deloitte. Those claims, of course, are interlaced with allegations of conspiracy and concerted misconduct with the co-defendants, including EPS, all culminating in the EPS/Holdens SPA in which the arbitration clause appears and in which various alleged fraudulent misstatements were made. The Holdens also cite Murphy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 17 Cal.3d 937, 132 Cal.Rptr. 424, 553 P.2d 584 (1976), which teaches that “[a] third party should not be permitted to enforce covenants made not for his benefit, but rather for others.” Id. at 944, 132 Cal.Rptr. 424, 553 P.2d 584. Judge Gettleman did not question that principle, but rather found that the SPA contained acknowledgments clearly intended to benefit Deloitte — see Hoffman, 143 F.Supp.2d at 1005—which acknowledgments centrally relate to the subjects put at issue by the Holdens’ complaint. Under the circumstances, Judge Gettleman held that De-loitte could invoke the arbitration clause on the independent ground of third-party beneficiary status. See id. at 1005 and n. 5 (citing MS Dealer, 177 F.3d at 947, and Brinderson-Newberg Joint Venture v. Pacific Erectors, Inc., 971 F.2d 272, 279 (9th Cir.1992) (applying California law)). Although the issue may be of little practical import, given the other bases for Judge Gettleman’s ruling discussed above, this Court is unpersuaded that the Holdens have satisfied the applicable standards for this Court to disclaim Judge Gettleman’s result on this issue. In sum, the Holdens have not made a serious attempt to satisfy the applicable standards for relief on a reconsideration motion or for a situation where a party seeks for one district court to upend a ruling of its predecessor district court in an inherited case. Moreover, Judge Get-tleman found that arbitration was appropriate on three independent bases, the first two of which, at least, seem clearly to be correct. The Reconsideration Motion is respectfully denied. III. Confirmation or Vacatur of the Arbitration Award Shortly after the Panel issued the Arbitration Award, the Holdens moved to vacate the award and to set the case for trial. The Holdens do not request that any part of the Award be sent back to the Panel for clarification or further explication. De-loitte filed a motion to confirm the award. The Court first addresses the Holdens’ motion to vacate. A. The Holdens’ Motion to Vacate 1. Standard of Review The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly instructed that “[jjudicial review of an arbitration panel’s award is extremely limited.” Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 37 F.3d 345, 349 (7th Cir.1994) (citing Carpenter Local 1027 v. Lee Lumber & Bldg. Material, 2 F.3d 796 (7th Cir.1993); accord Nat’l Wrecking Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 990 F.2d 957, 960 (7th Cir.1993) (“Arbitrators do not act as junior varsity trial courts where subsequent appellate review is readily available to the losing party.”); Dean v. Sullivan, 118 F.3d 1170, 1172 (7th Cir.1997). In this regard, “ ‘[f]actual or legal errors by arbitrators — even clear or gross errors — do not authorize courts to annul awards.’ ” Flexible Mfg. Sys. Pty. Ltd. v. Super Prods. Corp., 86 F.3d 96, 100 (7th Cir.1996) (quoting Gingiss Int'l, Inc. v. Bormet, 58 F.3d 328, 333 (7th Cir.1995) (internal citations omitted for clarity)). Or, put differently, “neither error nor clear error nor even gross error is a ground for vacating an award.” IDS Life Ins. Co. v. Royal Alliance Assocs., Inc., 266 F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir.2001) (citing, inter alia, Major League Baseball Players Assoc. v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509, 121 S.Ct. 1724, 149 L.Ed.2d 740 (2001)). “The fact that an arbitrator makes a mistake, by erroneously rejecting a valid, or even a dispositive legal defense, does not provide grounds for vacating an award unless the arbitrator deliberately disregarded what she knew to be the law.” Flexible Mfg. Sys., 86 F.3d at 100 (citing Eljer Mfg., Inc. v. Kowin Dev. Corp., 14 F.3d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir.1994)); accord, e.g., Nat’l Wrecking, 990 F.2d at 961 (“We will not set aside an arbitrator’s award for factual or legal errors, as long as the award contains the honest decision of the arbitrator after a full and fair hearing of the parties.”) (citation omitted); Carter v. Health Net of Cal., Inc., 374 F.3d 830, 838 (9th Cir.2004) (“As federal courts of appeals have repeatedly held, ‘manifest disregard of the law' means something more than just an error in the law or a failure on the part of the arbitrators to understand or apply the law. It must be clear from the record that the arbitrators recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.”) (collecting numerous federal appellate authorities; internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, to manifestly disregard a law, it must be well-defined, explicit, and clearly applicable. See, e.g., Westerbeke Corp. v. Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd., 304 F.3d 200, 208-09 (2d Cir.2002) (collecting cases). Internal inconsistencies within an arbitral judgment or opinion are not grounds for vacatur. See, e.g., id. at 212 (citing Saint Mary Home, Inc. v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Dist. 1199, 116 F.3d 41, 44-45 (2d Cir.1997)). “ ‘Thinly veiled attempts to obtain appellate review of an arbitrator’s decision’ ... are not permitted under the FAA.’ ” Flexible Mfg., 86 F.3d at 100 (quoting Gingiss Int’l, 58 F.3d at 333). In addition to not reviewing for gross or clear factual or legal error, courts also do not review arbitration awards for sufficiency of the evidence. Gingiss Int'l, 58 F.3d at 333 (citing Eljer Mfg., 14 F.3d at 1256). Section 10(a) of the FAA sets forth the few narrow grounds on which an arbitration may be vacated: (1) the award was procured by fraud, corruption or undue means, (2) there was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators, (3) the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing for sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear pertinent and material evidence or any other misbehavior which prejudices the rights of any party to the arbitration, or (4) the arbitrators exceeded their powers or executed these powers so imperfectly, that a mutual, final and definite award was not made. 9 U.S.C. §§ 10(a)(1)-10(a)(4). The Holdens principally contend that the Arbitration Award should be vacated because the Arbitrators “manifestly disregarded the law”' — a judicial gloss that courts often have superimposed on the statute. (See Holden Mem. at 13); see also Baravati v. Josephthal, Lyon & Ross, Inc., 28 F.3d 704, 706 (7th Cir.1994) (discussing cases). At least one panel of the Seventh Circuit has questioned whether the “manifest disregard” gloss is even legitimate. Baravati, 28 F.3d at 706; see also id. (“Judicial review of arbitration awards is tightly limited; perhaps it ought not be called ‘review’ at all.”). Another panel, in a decision that prompted a more limited concurrence in judgment, stated that the ‘manifest disregard’ standard is so narrow that it “is limited to two only possibilities: an arbi-tral order requiring the parties to violate the law (as by employing unlicensed truck drivers), and an arbitral order that does not adhere to the legal principles specified by contract....” George Watts & Son, Inc. v. Tiffany & Co., 248 F.3d 577, 581 (7th Cir.2001). In so stating, the George Watts majority also emphasized (consistent with an extensive body of precedent that spans the decades) that neither “clear” nor “manifest” legal error is sufficient to displace the result of an arbitration. See id. at 579. While Judge Williams, who concurred in the judgment in George Watts, felt that the majority’s formulation (with its focus on prohibiting the affirmative ordering of an illegal act) rendered the “manifest disregard” standard “effectively impotent,” her separate opinion made clear that her conception of the “manifest disregard” standard was nonetheless quite narrow, and did not allow for vacating an arbitral award on the basis of mere clear or even gross error. Id. at 582 (Williams, J., concurring in judgment). Instead, she wrote, “[w]e ask whether she [i.e., the arbitrator] affirmatively disregarded what she knew to be the law.” Id. at 583. This Court need not consider whether recent potential narrowing of the scope of review under the “manifest disregard” concept in Baravati and George Watts might be material in some different situations or other cases. In the case sub judice, this Cour