Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION BERYL A. HOWELL, Chief Judge The Republic of Argentina (“Argentina”) filed this lawsuit seeking vacatur of an international arbitration award against the country in the amount of $20,957,809, plus interest, in favor of the respondent AWG Group Ltd. (“AWG”). Pet. to Vacate Arbitration Award (“Pet.”), ECF No. 1. AWG, for its part, seeks confirmation, recognition, and enforcement of that same award. Cross-Pet. for Confirmation, Recognition and Enforcement of Award (“Resp.’s Cross-Pet.”), ECF No. 12. Argentina’s instant petition is not the only effort by the country to avoid unfavorable arbitration awards arising out of disputes between Argentina and private consortia that contracted with Argentina to provide infrastructure and public services in the country. See, e.g., BG Grp., PLC v. Republic of Argentina, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1198, 188 L.Ed.2d 220 (2014) (reversing the D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of a $185 million dollar arbitration award against Argentina in favor of British firm that was part of consortium with a majority interest in an Argentine entity holding “exclusive license to distribute natural gas in Buenos Aires”); Argentine Republic v. Nat’l Grid PLC, 637 F.3d 365 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of Argentina’s petition to vacate a $53 million dollar arbitration award and grant of respondent National Grid’s cross-motion to confirm the same). The arbitration award at issue in this case arises from a now-terminated thirty-year contract between Argentina and a private consortium, which included AWG, “to operate the water distribution and treatment systems serving the city of Bue-nos Aires.” Resp.’s Mem. in Opp’n Pet. to Vacate Arbitration Award and in Supp. of Cross-Pet. for Confirmation, Recognition and Enforcement of Award (“Resp.’s Mem.”) at 1, ECF No. 12. AWG alleges that fewer than ten years into the contract, Argentina altered the investment framework, refused to authorize tariff adjustments, attempted to force a renegotiation of the contract, and ultimately terminated the contract, thereby breaching “Argentina’s obligation to grant foreign investments ‘fair and equitable treatment’ ” and “Argentina’s obligation to provide foreign investments ‘full protection and security’ ” under the governing bilateral investment treaty between the United Kingdom and Argentina, the Agreement Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Argentina for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Arg.-U.K. (“UK-BIT”). Id. at 7-9. The UK-BIT provides for binding international arbitration arising out of an investment, Resp.’s Cross-Pet., Ex. 6 to Deck of Elliot Friedman (“Friedman Deck”), Agreement Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Argentina for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Arg.-U.K., Dec. 11,1990 (“UK-BIT”), ECF No. 12-7, available at 1765 U.N.T.S. 33, 38, and when the country where the award is made is a signatory to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”), codified by reference at 9 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., that convention governs enforcement of the award, see New York Convention, arts. I, III. In accordance with the terms of the UK-BIT, the parties’ dispute was submitted to binding international arbitration before an expert tribunal (the “Tribunal”), which confirmed its jurisdiction, see Pet., Ex. B to Deck of Matthew Slater (“Slater Deck”), AWG Grp. Ltd. v. The Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction (Aug. 3, 2006) (“Decision on Jurisdiction”), ECF No. 1-5, and after twelve years of proceedings entered a final award in favor of AWG in April 2015. Resp.’s Mem. at 1, 4, 11-12. Argentina now seeks to vacate the Tribunal’s award under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 10, arguing that one of the arbitrators acted with “evident partiality,” and that the Tribunal exceeded its powers, Pet. ¶¶ 2-3. For the reasons explained below, Argentina’s request to vacate the Tribunal’s award is denied and AWG’s cross-petition to confirm the award is granted. I. BACKGROUND Summarized below is the factual and procedural background pertinent to the resolution of the pending motions. A. The Concession Contract On December 28, 1992, Argentina awarded a concession for the “provision of] water and sewage services to Buenos Aires and surrounding municipalities” to a private consortium, which included AWG, a British corporation. Pet. ¶¶ 5, 13-14; Pet., Ex. C to Slater Decl., AWG Grp. v. The Argentine Republic, Decision on Liability (July 30, 2010) (“Decision on Liability”) ¶¶ 1, 33, ECF No. 1-6. Prior to this award, Argentina had declared its public services to be in “a state of emergency” and had taken steps to establish “a regulatory framework to privatize certain public services.” Pet. ¶¶ 10-11; Decision on Liability ¶¶ 28-31. Under this scheme, concessionaires would provide services, new capital, and technology, and in turn, “would be entitled to the payment of tariffs.” Pet. ¶¶ 11-12; Decision on Liability ¶¶ 30-32. To attract “the necessary long-term private and foreign capital,” the new regulatory framework: (1) pegged the Argentine peso to the United States dollar at a ratio of 1:1; and (2) permitted tariff adjustments “to take account of changing and unexpected circumstances.” Resp.’s Mem. at 5-6; Decision on Liability ¶¶ 29, 124. Argentina also entered into more than fifty bilateral investment treaties, including the UK-BIT, through which the countries sought to “encourage cross-border private investment.” Resp.’s Mem. at 4; Decision on Liability ¶¶ 29,124. The Buenos Aires water and sewage concession was granted to a consortium comprised of AWG and other foreign and Argentine companies, which together formed and operated as an Argentine company named Aguas Argentinas S.A. (“AASA”). Pet. ¶ 13; Decision on Liability ¶¶ 32-33. On April 28, 1993, AASA entered into a thirty-year contract with Argentina (the “Concession Contract”). Pet. ¶ 14; Decision on Liability ¶ 34. In accordance with the requirement in the Concession Contract to provide an “upfront investment to improve and expand the system,” AASA obtained loans from multilateral lending agencies, payable in United States dollars, while AASA had agreed to receive tariff payments in Argentine pesos, which were pegged under the terms of the Concession Contract to the United States dollar at a ratio of 1:1. Pet. ¶ 15; Decision on Liability ¶ 35. The Concession Contract included a termination clause “allowing termination under specified circumstances, including termination for the concessionaire’s fault.” Pet. ¶ 16; Decision on Liability ¶ 114. By 2001, AASA had invested $1.7 billion in the Concession Contract, “yield[ing] substantial improvements in the water distribution and sewage system serving Bue-nos Aires.” Resp.’s Mem. at 6; Decision on Liability ¶¶ 35-36. Around this time, however, Argentina “began to experience significant economic difficulties that would eventually lead to a financial crisis having serious consequences for the country, its people, and its investors, both foreign and national.” Decision on Liability ¶ 41; Pet. ¶ 18. “[T]o return stability to the country,” Argentina adopted “a series of policies and measures,” including, in 2002, Emergency Law No. 25,561. Pet. ¶ 19; Decision on Liability ¶ 44. This measure, inter alia: (1) “abolished the currency board that linked the Argentine peso to the U.S. dollar, which was followed by a significant depreciation of the Argentine peso;” (2) “abolished the adjustment of public service contracts according to the agreed-upon indexations;” and (3) “authorized the Executive branch of the government to renegotiate all public service contracts.” Pet. ¶ 19; Decision on Liability ¶ 44. The Emergency Law “also forbade concessionaires from suspending or altering their contractual performance.” Resp.’s Mem. at 7; Decision on Liability ¶ 44. These policies and measures, particularly the unpegging of the Argentine peso from the United States dollar, “had a ruinous effect on AASA’s cash flows, because AASA’s tariffs were calculated in Argentine pesos while its debt obligations were necessarily denominated in U.S. dollars.” Resp.’s Mem. at 7; Decision on Liability ¶ 50. Starting in March 2002, Argentina and AASA engaged in negotiations “to adjust the terms of the Concession Contract,” but were unable to come to an agreement. Pet. ¶ 20; Decision on Liability ¶¶ 46-47, 49-50. Argentina ignored or rejected AASA’s requested “tariff adjustments and modifications to its operation conditions” and, instead, “demanded that AASA provide water and sewage services to areas outside the scope of [the Concession Contract]” and “insisted that AASA continue to comply fully with its investment obligations.” Resp.’s Mem. at 7; Decision on Liability ¶¶ 44-51. Argentina also “alerted AASA to several significant performance failures in violation of the Concession Contract.” Pet. ¶ 20; Decision on Liability ¶ 52. In September 2005, the AASA requested termination of the Concession Contract, which Argentina refused. Resp.’s Mem. at 7; Decision on Liability ¶ 53. Several months later, in March 2006, Argentina terminated the Concession Contract for fault by AASA. Pet. ¶ 21; Decision on Liability ¶ 56. B. The Arbitration On April 17, 2003, after passage of the Emergency Law, but prior to the termination of the Concession Contract, the foreign investors in AASA requested arbitration against Argentina claiming that Argentina’s actions “violate[d] three specific treaty provisions: 1) guarantees against direct and indirect expropriation of their investments; 2) guarantees to accord their investments full protection and security; and 3) guarantees to accord their investments fair and equitable treatment.” Decision on Liability ¶¶ 48, 127; see UK-BIT, arts. 2(2), 5. Each of the foreign investors (hereinafter “Claimants”) invoked Argentina’s consent to arbitrate in the bilateral investment treaty governing their investment. Decision on Liability ¶¶ 1-2. Since the other bilateral investment treaties provided for International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) arbitration, Argentina and AWG agreed that the ICSID would also administer AWG’s case, subject to the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Rules (“UNCITRAL Rules”), which is a default international arbitration scheme provided for in the UK-BIT. Decision on Liability ¶¶ 2, 4; BIT, art. 8(3). This scheme permitted all of the foreign investors’ claims to be arbitrated before the same tribunal. Decision on Liability ¶¶ 2, 4; Pet. ¶ 24. The Tribunal, appointed in fall 2003, was comprised of three members. Decision on Liability ¶ 5; Pet. ¶ 24. The Claimants appointed Professor Gabrielle Kauftnann-Kohler; Argentina appointed Professor Pedro Nikken; and, because the parties could not agree on a third arbitrator, ICSID appointed Professor Jeswald W. Salacuse to be the Tribunal President. Decision on Liability ¶¶ 5-6; Pet. ¶ 24. The seat of the arbitration was designated to be Washington, D.C. Pet., Ex. A to Slater Deck, AWG Grp. Ltd. v. The Argentine Republic, Award (Apr. 9, 2015) (“Final Award”) at i, ECF No. 1-4; Decision on Liability ¶ 9. Over the course of the arbitration, from the time of AWG’s request for arbitration in April 2003 to the Tribunal’s issuance of the final award twelve years later, in April 2015, the Tribunal issued five decisions. Decision on Liability ¶ 1; Final Award at i. In the first decision, issued on August 3, 2006, the Tribunal rejected Argentina’s objections to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the claims. Decision on Jurisdiction ¶ 69. The second decision responded to Argentina’s request to remove Professor Kaufmann-Kohler from the Tribunal, because she had served as an arbitrator in a different case, in which the panel had already issued an award against Argentina. Resp.’s. Mem. at 14. This challenge was rejected by “the two unchallenged arbitrators (including Argentina’s appointee),” in accordance with agreed-upon procedures. Resp.’s Mem. at 14; Resp.’s Cross-Pet., Ex. 16 to Friedman Deck, AWG Grp. v. The Argentine Republic (Oct. 22, 2007) (“First Disqualification Decision”) ¶¶ 12, 17, ECF No. 12-17 (citing ICSID Arbitration Rule 9(4)). The third decision responded to a second request from Argentina to remove Professor Kaufmann-Kohler, following her appointment on April 19, 2006, to the Board of Directors of UBS (“UBS Board”), “on grounds that her directorship, and her decision not to disclose it, gave rise to justifiable doubts as to her impartiality and independence, in conflict with the ICSID Convention and the UN-CITRAL Rules.” Pet. ¶¶ 28-29; Pet., Ex. K to Slater Deck, Challenge to Mrs. Gabrielle Kaufmann Kohler (“Second Disqualification Challenge”) at 1-2, ECF No. 1-14. The two unchallenged arbitrators, again, rejected Argentina’s claim. Pet., Ex. H to Slater Deck, AWG Grp. Ltd. v. The Argentine Republic (May 12, 2008) (“Second Disqualification Decision”) ¶ 26, ECF No. 1-11. In any event, on April 15, 2009, nearly a year after the Second Disqualification Decision, “Professor Kaufmann-Kohler resigned as an independent director [of UBS]” in order “to avoid any possible expression of doubt about her arbitral independence.” Resp.’s Mem. at 22; Resp.’s Cross-Pet., Ex. 23 to Friedman Deck, Kaufmann Kohler Leaves UBS Board, Global Arbitration Review, May 1, 2009, at 1, ECF No. 12-24. Over a year after Professor Kaufmann-Kohler had resigned from the UBS Board, the Tribunal issued its fourth decision, on July 30, 2010, finding Argentina liable for failing to provide the investments “fair and equitable treatment.” Decision on Liability ¶¶ 247-48. Specifically, as described in the Decision on Liability, the Tribunal concluded that “Argentina’s actions in refusing to revise the tariff according to the legal framework of the Concession and in pursuing the forced renegotiation of the Concession Contract contrary to that legal framework violated its obligations under the applicable BITs to accord the investments of the Claimants fair and equitable treatment.” Id. ¶ 247. The fifth and final Tribunal decision on damages owed by Argentina, known as the “Final Award,” was issued on April 9, 2015, and awarded a total of $404,539,050, plus interest, to the Claimants, including $20,957,809, plus interest, to AWG. Final Award at 58-62. AWG alleges that Argentina has not yet complied with the award, see Resp.’s Mem. at 3, and Argentina does not' dispute this assertion. C. Procedural History On July 6, 2015, Argentina petitioned to vacate the Tribunal’s arbitration award on the grounds that the Tribunal acted with evident partiality, under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2) (authorizing vacatur of arbitration award “where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators”), and that the Tribunal exceeded its powers by improperly calculating damages and failing to apply international law, under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) (authorizing vacatur of arbitration award “where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made”). See generally Pet. Less than two months later, on September 1, 2015, AWG filed a cross-petition to confirm the award, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9, and Article IV of the New York Convention. See generally Resp.’s Cross-Pet. Both petitions are ripe for review. 11. LEGAL STANDARD FOR REVIEW OF CHALLENGED ARBITRATION AWARD Review of arbitral awards is “extremely limited,” Kurke v. Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc., 454 F.3d 350, 354 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Teamsters Local Union No. 61 v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 272 F.3d 600, 604 (D.C. Cir. 2001)), and is “ ‘not an occasion for de novo review.’ ” Scandinavian Reins. Co. v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 60, 71 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Wallace v. Buttar, 378 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir. 2004)). Courts “do not sit to hear claims of factual or legal error by an arbitrator” as they would “in reviewing decisions of lower courts.” Kurke, 454 F.3d at 354 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Indeed, the standard of review of arbitral awards is so narrow that courts are “not authorized to reconsider the merits of an award even though the parties may allege that the award rests on errors of fact or on misinterpretation of the contract.” United Paperworkers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 36, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987). While an “arbitrator may not ignore the plain language of the contract ... [,] as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision.” Id. at 38, 108 S.Ct. 364. The Supreme Court has explained that this high level of deference is required for arbitration awards because, “[i]f parties could take ‘full-bore legal and eviden-tiary appeals,’ arbitration would become ‘merely a prelude to a more cumbersome and time-consuming judicial review process.’ ” Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2064, 2068, 186 L.Ed.2d 113 (2013) (quoting Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 588, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008)). Thus, where the parties have chosen arbitration, they “must now live with that choice.” Id. at 2071. The fact that the document containing an arbitration agreement is a treaty does not “make[ ] a critical difference,” since “[a]s a general matter, a treaty is a contract, though between nations.” BG Grp. PLC, 134 S.Ct. at 1208. “Consistent with the ‘emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution’ recognized by the Supreme Court as ‘applying] with special force in the field of international commerce,’ the FAA affords the district court little discretion in refusing or deferring enforcement of foreign arbitral awards .... ” Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize (“Belize Soc. Dev. I”), 668 F.3d 724, 727 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 631, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985)). III. DISCUSSION Argentina urges vacatur of the arbitration award under two provisions of the FAA’s § 10. First, due to Professor Kauf-mann-Kohler’s position on the UBS Board, and her alleged failure to investigate and disclose that position and its potential for conflict, Argentina contends vacatur is warranted under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2). Pet. ¶¶ 2, 43. Second, because the Tribunal allegedly awarded damages outside of the legal boundaries afforded by the UK-BIT and allegedly failed to apply international legal principles as required by the UK-BIT, Argentina argues that vacatur is also warranted under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). Id. ¶¶ 3, 68. AWG discounts these arguments as “groundless” and contends that the arbitration award must be confirmed because none of the statutory bases for vacatur exist. Resp.’s Mem. at 3. Following review of the statutory framework, Argentina’s challenges to the Tribunal’s arbitration award are addressed seriatim, below. A. Statutory Framework Both the United States and Argentina are parties to the New York Convention, which applies to arbitral awards made in the territory of a signatory country to the Convention. See New York Convention, art. 1(1)); Belize Soc. Dev. I, 668 F.3d at 731 n.3 (“If the place of the award is ‘in the territory of a party to the Convention, all other Convention states are required to recognize and enforce the award, regardless of the citizenship or domicile of the parties to the arbitration.’ ” (quoting Creighton Ltd. v. Gov’t of the State of Qatar, 181 F.3d 118, 121 (D.C. Cir. 1999))). The Supreme Court described the purpose of the New York Convention as to “encourage the recognition and enforcement of commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts and to unify the standards by which agreements to arbitrate are observed and arbitral awards are enforced in the signatory countries.” Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 520 n.15, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974). Thus, the Convention “provid[es] for ‘the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of a State other than the State where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are sought.’ ” Belize Soc. Dev., Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize (“Belize Soc. Dev. II”), 794 F.3d 99, 103 (D.C. Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed, Dec. 24, 2015 (quoting New York Convention, art. 1(1)). “The basic understanding of the New York Convention is that ‘[e]ach Contracting State shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon, under the conditions laid down in the ... articles [of the Convention].’ ” TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928, 934 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (quoting New York Convention, art. III). “‘[T]he critical element is the place of the award: if that place is in the territory of a party to the Convention, all other Convention states are required to recognize and enforce the award, regardless of the citizenship or domicile of the parties to the arbitration.’” Id. (quoting Creighton Ltd., 181 F.3d at 121). The New York Convention, which has been codified as chapter 2 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-08, provides that a party may apply to any court with jurisdiction for confirmation of an arbitration award within three years of when the award is made, Id. § 207. The court is required to “confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the award specified in the [New York] Convention.” Id. Article V of the New York Convention sets forth the exclusive grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of the award. See TermoRio S.A. E.S.P., 487 F.3d at 935 (noting that courts “may refuse to enforce the award [subject to New York Convention] only on the grounds explicitly set forth in Article V of the Convention.” (quoting Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 126 F.3d 15, 23 (2d Cir. 1997))). As pertinent here, Article V(l)(e) provides for vacatur of an arbitral award that “has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made,” New York Convention, art. V(l)(e), thereby authorizing parties to employ any grounds provided by domestic law in the jurisdiction where the award was made, “to the extent that” those domestic provisions are “not in conflict with” the New York Convention. 9 U.S.C. § 208. See also Scandinavian Reins. Co., 668 F.3d at 71 (observing that “ ‘FAA and the New York Convention work in tandem, and they have overlapping coverage to the extent that they do not conflict’ ”) (quoting Sole Resort, S.A. de C.V. v. Allure Resorts Mgmt., LLC, 450 F.3d 100, 102 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006)); Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons., 126 F.3d at 21 (“We read Article V(l)(e) of the [New York] Convention to allow a court in the country under whose law the arbitration was conducted to apply domestic arbitral law, in this case the FAA, to a motion to set aside or vacate that arbitral award.”). Thus, when, as here, the award is made in the United States, the parties may, through Article V(l)(e), seek vacatur of the arbitration award under the FAA provisions applicable to domestic awards in 9 U.S.C. §§10 and 11. See Zeiler v. Deitsch, 500 F.3d 157, 164 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding, where “arbitration took place in the United States” but where significant aspects of the arbitration, including certain parties and the governing law were international, “the awards entered ... are at the same time subject to the FAA provisions governing domestic arbitration awards” and the New York Convention); see also Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons, 126 F.3d at 23 (“The Convention specifically contemplates that the state in which, or under the law of which, the award is made, will be free to set aside or modify an award in accordance with its domestic arbitral law and its full panoply of express and implied grounds for-relief.”). Under the domestic provisions of the FAA, the court must confirm an arbitration award unless there are statutory grounds to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitrators’ decision. 9 U.S.C. § 9 (“[A]ny party to the arbitration may apply to the court [in and for the district within which such award was made] for an order confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of [the FAA].”). Section 10 of the FAA provides the following four grounds for vacatur of an arbitration decision and award: (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or (4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a). B. Argentina’s Claim of Evident Partiality by a Tribunal Member Invoking the grounds set out in the FAA’s § 10(a)(2), Argentina contends that “[t]he [a]ward must be vacated because Professor Kaufmann-Kohler had a direct interest in the outcome of the case by virtue of her service as a director (and a shareholder) of UBS,” Pet. ¶ 48, and that this arbitrator’s impartiality was further evidenced by her “failure to disclose her acceptance of the appointment as director and her failure to investigate adequately the potential for the appointment to compromise her independence and impartiality,” Id. AWG responds that these claims are meritless in light of the deferential standard of review due to the two unchallenged arbitrators’ Second Disqualification Decision, and that, in any event, Argentina has failed to demonstrate that Professor Kaufman-Kohler’s position, or her failure to investigate or disclose the potential for conflict, amounted to the requisite “evident partiality” to refuse recognition and enforcement of the Final Award. Resp.’s Mem. at 25-34. 1. Relevant Background Review of the chronology of events and the factual basis for the alleged partiality demonstrates that Argentina’s challenge to one of the Tribunal members falls far short. On July 17, 2003, the Claimants appointed Professor Kaufman-Kohler as one of three arbitrators to hear the Claimant’s ICSID cases, including AWG’s case at issue in this litigation. Second Disqualification Decision ¶ 3. Subsequently, these three arbitrators on the Tribunal commenced hearings and issued decisions in the Claimant’s cases, on such issues as “timetables and procedures on submission of documents, the jurisdiction of the tribunal, requests by a group of nongovernmental organization to participate as amicus curiae, the withdrawal of certain parties, and various other matters concerning the orderly management and processing of the arbitral proceedings.” Id. ¶ 6 (footnotes omitted). During this ongoing arbitration activity, on April 19, 2006, Professor Kaufmann-Kohler was appointed to a three-year term as a non-executive member of the UBS Board. Id. ¶ 11. At this time, “she submitted on a confidential basis a list of all her arbitrations to UBS and was subsequently informed by UBS that there were no conflicts of interest, except with respect to her position as a member of the America Cup Jury (since UBS sponsored a yacht in that competition), from which she resigned.” Id. ¶ 14. Although the arbitration at issue in this case had already commenced and was disclosed in the conflicts check to UBS, Professor Kaufmann-Kohler did not disclose her new UBS Board position to the instant parties or other arbitrators. Id. ¶ 11. In the spring and fall of 2007, the Tribunal held hearings on the merits of each of the Claimant’s cases. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. Upon learning of Professor Kaufmann-Kohler’s appointment to the UBS Board over a year after her appointment, Argentina filed a challenge to disqualify Professor Kaufmann-Kohler from the arbitration proceedings on November 29, 2007. Id. ¶ 11. This challenge was premised on UBS’s ownership of shares in two members of the consortium responsible for “the Buenos Aires water privatization that is at the heart of the dispute.” Id. ¶ 21. Specifically, “[a]ccording to the Vivendi web site, UBS was a ‘main investor’ in the corporation, holding 2.38% of its registered voting stock as of March 31, 2007. UBS also held some 2.1% of the voting shares of Suez as of March 7, 2007.” Id. ¶ 12. In its challenge, Argentina also pointed out that “UBS does research on and makes recommendations with respect to investments in the water sector, a sector in which the Claimants operate, and UBS has developed financial products that it sells to investors to permit them to invest in the water sector on a global basis.” Id. Further, Argentina cited the fact that, as a non-executive member of the UBS Board, Professor Kaufmann-Kohler is compensated for her services, in part, with UBS stock. Id. Notably, UBS is not a shareholder of AWG. Id. ¶ 21. In a submission to the remaining two arbitrators determining the challenge, Professor Kaufmann-Kohler explained that until Argentina’s challenge was lodged, “she had no knowledge of the business relationships alleged to exist between the Claimants and [UBS].” Pet., Ex. F to the Slater Deck, Letter from Gabrielle Kauf-mann-Kohler to Gonzalo Flores (Dec. 21, 2007) (“Dec. 21, 2007 Kaufmann-Kohler Letter”) at 1; Pet. ¶ 14. After Argentina brought these business relations to her attention, she requested that UBS “verify the accuracy of the UBS shareholdings in the Claimants and was informed by the UBS Corporate Group General Counsel that UBS held 2.38% of the shares and voting rights of Vivendi Universal on March 31, 2007 and 2.13% of Suez’s share capital on March 7, 2007 and 1.3% on April 18, 2006.” Second Disqualification Decision ¶ 14; Dec. 21, 2007 Kaufmann-Kohler Letter at 1. Professor Kaufmann-Kohler submitted to the remaining two arbitrators on the Tribunal additional contextual information “that UBS, as a global financial institution, has many business relationships with many corporations and states worldwide but that she as an independent, non-executive director has no involvement in individual investment decisions and did not receive any information about such individual investment decisions” and “that non-executive directors do not deal with individual UBS client matters or transactions.” Second Disqualification Decision ¶ 14. Similarly, UBS itself confirmed, “[a]ll these shareholdings are fairly small, if not fractional. They do not have a strategic meaning of any kind. UBS would invest in hundreds, if not thousands of commercial enterprises around the globe in a similar way. Investment of this magnitude lies within the ordinary course of business of our bank.” Second Disqualification Decision ¶ 14 (quoting “communication of December 20, 2007 to Professor Kaufmann-Kohler signed by UBS’ General Counsel and another Legal Advisor”). Notwithstanding the minimal nature of UBS’s investments in two consortium members other than AWG’ and the challenged arbitrator’s lack of knowledge about the UBS investments until alerted by Argentina, as well as her lack of any role or decision-making authority over UBS’s investments, Argentina attempted to bolster its challenge by offering expert reports from Cornell University Law School Professor Charles W. Wolfram (“Wolfram Reports”). Id. ¶ 15; see generally Pet., Ex. D to Slater Deck, Expert Report of Charles W. Wolfram (Feb. 29, 2008); Pet., Ex. E to Slater Deck, Reply Expert Report of Charles W. Wolfram (Mar. 24, 2008). As noted by the unchallenged arbitrators, the Wolfram Reports focused almost entirely on consortium members, Suez and Vivendi, not AWG, to support Argentina’s argument that Professor Kaufman-Kohler’s position on the UBS Board rendered her impartial in evaluating AWG’s claims. Second Disqualification Decision ¶ 15. Ultimately, the unchallenged arbitrators of the Tribunal, including Argentina’s appointed arbitrator Professor Nikken, concluded that Argentina’s Second Disqualification Challenge must be dismissed for failure “to prove any fact indicating a manifest lack of independence or impartiality.” Id. § V, ¶ 1. With respect to AWG, the unchallenged arbitrators reasoned that, “the only connection, if one may call it that, between Professor Kaufmann-Kohler and the Claimant AWG Group Limited is the fact that she is a director of UBS and that UBS, among its many other activities and interests throughout the world, conducts research and develops financial products related to the water sector,” but they concluded that this connection is insufficient to give rise to “justifiable doubts as to an arbitrator’s independence and impartiality.” Id. ¶ 24. Based on this conclusion, the two unchallenged members further found that Professor Kaufmann-Kohler was not required to disclose facts that would not have, given rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality. Id. ¶ 26. The two unchallenged members acknowledged “the possibility of a connection between the AWG case and the other two cases in the sense that if it were established that Professor Kaufmann-Kohler were predisposed to favor the Claimants in the ICSID cases such predisposition would also favor AWG Group Limited which is a partner with the other Claimants in the Buenos Aires water privatization,” id. ¶ 21, but as they found no such predisposition, the arbitrators did not have occasion to address any implications of this connection, see id. ¶¶ 40, 48. Notwithstanding the two unchallenged arbitrator’s findings, subsequent to the Second Decision on Disqualification, in an abundance of caution, Professor Kauf-mann-Kohler cut short her UBS Board service and resigned from the UBS Board prior to the Decision on Liability and the Final Award. See Resp.’s Cross-Pet., Ex. 22 to Friedman Decl., Form 2Ó-F for UBS AG at 191 (2009 Annual Report noting Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler tendered her resignation at Annual General Meeting on April 15, 2009), ECF No. 12-23; see also Kaufmann Kohler Leaves UBS Board at 1 (contemporaneous interview by Professor Kaufmann-Kohler explaining that she resigned, in part, to avoid doubts arising about her independence ‘“in arbitration proceedings’ ”). 2. Analysis Section 10(a)(2) of the FAA provides that the Court may vacate an arbitration award “where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them.” 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2). The Supreme Court provided some guidance for evaluating evident partiality challenges in its plurality opinion in Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., a decision setting aside an arbitration award where one of the parties was a “repeated and significant” customer of one of the arbitrators. 393 U.S. 145, 146, 89 S.Ct. 337, 21 L.Ed.2d 301 (1968). Justice White, in his concurring opinion, provided the narrowest reasoning for the decision to vacate the award for evident partiality, observing that the “Court does not decide today that arbitrators are to be held to the standards of judicial decorum of Article III judges, or indeed of any judges.” Id. at 150, 89 S.Ct. 337 (White, J., concurring). Instead, noting that arbitrators are often “effective in their adjudicatory function” because “they are men of affairs, not apart from but of the marketplace,” Justice White reasoned “that arbitrators are not automatically disqualified by a business relationship with the parties before them if both parties are informed of the relationship in advance, or if they are unaware of the facts but the relationship is trivial.” Id. Nevertheless, “where the arbitrator has a substantial interest in a firm which has done more than trivial business with a party, that fact must be disclosed.” Id. at 151-52, 89 S.Ct. 337. Justice White also cautioned that “[t]his does not mean the judiciary must overlook outright chicanery in giving effect to their awards; that would be an abdication of our responsibility.” Id. at 150, 89 S.Ct. 337. Justice Black, writing for a plurality of four Justices, articulated a stricter ethical standard for arbitrators, finding that “we should, if anything, be even more scrupulous to safeguard the impartiality of arbitrators than judges,” and that arbitrators must avoid even the “appearance of bias.” Id. at 149, 151, 89 S.Ct. 337. Following the lead of Justice White’s concurrence, the D.C. Circuit, in Al-Harbi v. Citibank, instructed that “ ‘the burden on a claimant for vacation of an arbitration award due to ‘evident partiality’ is heavy, and the claimant must establish specific facts that indicate improper motives on the part of an arbitrator.’ ” 85 F.3d 680, 683 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting Peoples Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 991 F.2d 141, 146 (4th Cir. 1993) (relying on Justice White’s concurrence in Commonwealth Coatings)). “ ‘The alleged partiality must be direct, definite, and capable of demonstration rather than remote, uncertain or speculative.’ ” Al-Harbi, 85 F.3d at 683 (quoting Peoples Sec. Life Ins. Co., 991 F.2d at 146) (internal quotation marks omitted). “ ‘[A] mere appearance of bias is insufficient to demonstrate evident partiality.’” Hammad v. Lewis, 638 F.Supp.2d 70, 75 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Alston v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 04-01798, 2006 WL 20516, at *3 (D.D.C. Jan. 2, 2006)). Other circuits to have considered the issue have employed an objective test that “ ‘evident partiality ... will be found where a reasonable person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration.’ ” Scandinavian Reins. Co., 668 F.3d at 72 (quoting Morelite Constr. Corp. v. New York City Dist. Council Carpenters Benefit Funds, 748 F.2d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 1984)); see also Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 429 F.3d 640, 645 (6th Cir. 2005) (same); JCI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 103, 324 F.3d 42, 52 (1st Cir. 2003) (same). Even though the D.C. Circuit has not expressly endorsed this standard, the parties appear to agree that it applies here. See Resp.’s Mem. at 26 (citing Al-Harbi v. Citibank, N.A., No. 94-2425, 1995 WL 450523, at *2 (D.D.C. July 17, 1995)); Pet.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Resp.’s Cross-Pet. for Confirmation, Recognition and Enforcement of Award & in Further Supp. Pet. to Vacate Arbitration Award (“Pet’s Opp’n”) at 16, ECF. No 17 (stating award must be vacated where an arbitrator has a relationship “such that reasonable people would have to believe [that the relationship] provides strong evidence of partiality by the arbitrator” (alteration in original) (quoting Morelite, 748 F.2d at 85)). Set against the “onerous standard for vacatur,” Alr-Harbi, 85 F.3d at 683, Argentina’s claim of evident partiality rests entirely on Professor Kaufmann-Kohler’s position as a non-executive member on the UBS Board for a limited three-year period, from April 19, 2006, to April 15, 2009, out of the twelve-year duration of the arbitration. Despite the notable facts that UBS held no interest in AWG, that the challenged arbitrator served on the UBS Board for only a fraction of the time she served on the Tribunal, and that she had resigned from the UBS Board at the time of issuance of the Decision on Liability and the Final Award, Argentina points to UBS’s investments in two of AWG’s consortium partners and UBS’s general investment activities in the water sector, as evidence of the challenged arbitrator’s partiality. This evidence is wholly insufficient to establish Argentina’s claim of evident partiality for at least three reasons. First, in the context of UBS’s overall business, that company’s interests in AWG’s consortium partners, Suez and Vi-vendi, was inconsequential. UBS “is among the world’s largest financial services companies, with operations in over fifty countries, some 80,000 employees, and over 200,000 registered shareholders.” Second Disqualification Decision ¶ 10 (footnote omitted) (referencing www.ubs.com). Indeed, illustrating the ubiquitous nature of UBS’s business, Argentina itself was a client of UBS until January 17, 2005, after the arbitration proceedings had commenced. See Resp.’s Cross-Pet., Ex. 24 to Friedman Decl., AWG Grp. v. Argentine Republic, Argentina’s Additional Observations and Comments to Mrs. Kauffman-Kohler Remarks (Jan. 7, 2008) ¶ 101, ECF No. 12-25 (Argentina acknowledging its relationship with UBS and noting that it ended on January 17, 2005). UBS’s investments in AWG’s consortium partners, Suez and Vivendi, were “ ‘fairly small, if not fractional,’ ” and amounted to only two of “ ‘hundreds, if not thousands of commercial enterprises around the globe.’ ” Second Disqualification Decision ¶ 14 (quoting “communication of December 20, 2007 to Professor Kaufinann-Kohler signed by UBS’s General Counsel and another Legal Advisor”). These investments “represented a mere one-twentieth of one percent (0.056%) of UBS’s total investments worldwide,” Resp.’s Reply Mem. in Further Supp. Cross-Pet. for Confirmation, Recognition and Enforcement of Award (“Resp.’s Reply”) at 10 (emphasis omitted), ECF No. 18, were within the “ordinary course of business of [the] bank,” Second Disqualification Decision ¶ 14, and consisted mainly of shares held on behalf of third parties, See Resp.’s Cross-Pet., Ex. 25 to Friedman Deck, AWG Grp. Ltd. v. The Argentine Republic, Claimant’s Comments on the Respondent’s Second Challenge to Professor Kaufmann-Kohler (Dec. 24, 2007) ¶¶ 23-30, ECF No. 12-26 (noting UBS held approximately one-eighth of the Suez shares on its own behalf, while the rest of the Suez shares and all of the Vivendi shares were held on behalf of third parties). Indeed, the unchallenged arbitrators determined that “it is more likely that this arbitration, whatever its outcome, will have a negligible effect on the share price of Vivendi and Suez and certainly on the financial fortunes of UBS .... UBS’s holding in Suez and Vivendi would have an insignificant effect on UBS profitability given the enormous size and scope of UBS global operations.” Second Disqualification Decision ¶ 36. Argentina contends that there is no requirement that it must prove that the award at issue here would have an impact on Suez and Vivendi’s share prices, and thus, UBS’s bottom line, see Pet.’s Sur-Reply in Supp. Pet. to Vacate Arbitration Award & in Opp’n Resp.’s Cross-Pet. for Confirmation, Recognition and Enforcement of Award (“Pet’s Sur-Reply”) at 9, ECF No. 20, but even so, the lack of this evidence in the record certainly does not help Argentina make its argument that the award would have had any effect on UBS. Relatedly, since UBS had no more than a trivial interest in Suez and Vivendi, the challenged arbitrator’s role at UBS and her compensation in UBS stock is likewise inconsequential. Courts have repeatedly rejected claims of evident partiality based on an arbitrator’s attenuated investment in one of the parties or, as here, an entity with tangential investments in a party. Transit Cas. Co. v. Trenwick Reins. Co., 659 F.Supp. 1346, 1353 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (denying vacatur on grounds that relationship was “trivial” where arbitrator owned stock in Cigna Corporation, which had a subsidiary, Cigna Holdings, which owned 100% of the Aetna Insurance Corporation, which in turn owned 7.6% of the shares of the challenging party’s parent company); Standard Tankers (Bahamas) Co. v. Motor Tank Vessel, Akti, 438 F.Supp. 153, 160 (E.D.N.C. 1977) (finding arbitrator’s ownership of “a small number of shares” in a party’s parent company was immaterial where there was still “such a vast number of outstanding shares of stock”); see also Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd. v. All Am. Life Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 617, 621 (7th Cir. 2002) (“A judge can’t hold even a single share of a party’s stock, but this would not imply ‘evident partiality’ for purposes of § 10(a)(2).”). The challenged arbitrator’s role as a non-executive member of the UBS Board further demonstrates the attenuated nature of her relationship to the parties. As a matter of course, this arbitrator “ha[d] no involvement in individual investment decisions and did not receive any information about such individual investment decisions” and “[did] not deal with individual UBS client matters or transactions.” Second Disqualification Decision ¶ 14. This role in an intermediary company is far more remote relative to the parties than the types of long-standing, direct, and repeated business relationship with a party that has supported a finding of evident partiality by an arbitrator. See, e.g., Schmitz v. Zilveti, 20 F.3d 1043, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994) (arbitrator’s law firm represented the parent company of a party in “at least nineteen cases during a period of 35 years”); Morelite, 748 F.2d at 84 (father-son relationship between an arbitrator and party). Thus, the challenged arbitrator’s role on the Board of a limited investor in non-parties Suez and Vivendi for a relatively short time period during the arbitration is so remote and trivial that no reasonable person would conclude she was partial to a party as a result of that relationship. Al-Harbi, 85 F.3d at 683. In further support of its position, Argentina cites the International Bar Association Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration. Pet. ¶ 55 (footnote omitted) (referencing IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (“IBA Guidelines”), Int’l Bar Assoc. (2014), available at http://www.ibanet.org/ Publieations/publications_IBA_guides_ and_free_rnaterials.aspx). According to Argentina, these guidelines contain a “Non-Waivable Red List” of conflicts for arbitrators that cannot be waived, including when “[t]he arbitrator is a manager, director or member of the supervisory board, or has a controlling influence on one of the parties or an entity that has a direct economic interest in the award to be rendered in the arbitration.” IBA Guidelines, Part II, § 1.2. Other courts have found these guidelines to be persuasive, but not binding authority. See, e.g., New Regency Prods., Inc. v. Nippon Herald Films, Inc., 501 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007). In any event, the IBA Guidelines simply do not favor Argentina’s position. Instead, these Guidelines expressly focus on the substantive nature, or materiality, of a challenged arbitrator’s financial or business interest in the award by requiring a controlling interest in an entity with, or some other “direct economic interest in,” the award. IBA Guidelines, Part II, § 1.2. Such a material interest, is wholly absent on the part of the challenged arbitrator. Second, the fact that UBS, “among its many other activities and interests throughout the world, conducts research and develops financial products related to the water sector,” Second Disqualification Decision ¶ 24, contributes little to Argentina’s claim of evident partiality. Argentina cites no case law even suggesting that an arbitrator’s position with a company that invests in the same general sector as the parties gives rise to evident partiality. To the contrary, arbitrators are often called upon from relevant industries because they bring the benefit of expertise. See Commonwealth Coatings, 393 U.S. at 150, 89 S.Ct. 337 (White, J., concurring) (recognizing that arbitrators are often “of the marketplace”); see also JCI Commc’ns, 324 F.3d at 52 (noting that “mere fact that the panel included business rivals of one party does not rise to the level of evident partiality” because arbitrators from relevant industries bring expertise that “would be a considerable benefit”). Finally, given the attenuated business interest between UBS and AWG’s business consortium partners, the challenged arbitrator had no duty to investigate and disclose these “marginally disclosable” facts. Al-Harbi, 85 F.3d at 683 (referencing Commonwealth Coatings, 393 U.S. 145, 149, 89 S.Ct. 337, 21 L.Ed.2d 301 (1968)). Indeed, the challenged arbitrator was not, prior to Argentina’s requests for disqualification, aware of any relationship between UBS and the claimants, and had done her due diligence by conducting a conflicts check with UBS. Cf. Ometto v. ASA Bioenergy Holding A.G., No. 12 Civ. 1328, 2013 WL 174259, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2013) (finding even an inadequate conflicts check “not tantamount to ‘evident partiality’ ”). Argentina’s argument that a conflict check done by UBS is inadequate because it was an interested party, see Pet’s Sur-Reply at 17-18, defies practicality. UBS is in the best position to know of its matters, and accordingly, it was eminently reasonable for Professor Kaufmann-Kohler to rely upon the institution to inform her of meaningful conflicts. Moreover, this is not a case like Applied Indus., relied upon by Argentina, where the Second Circuit determined that an arbitrator, who was Chairman, President, and CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, upon learning of a potential conflict, should have conducted an investigation that would have uncovered an ongoing relationship for services between a subsidiary of that arbitrator’s company and a party. 492 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court found that the revenue from this relationship—$275,000— was nontrivial, and accordingly, that the arbitrator’s failure “to investigate those discussions or disclose that he would make no further inquiries” amounted to evident partiality. Id. Unlike the relationship in Applied Indus., however, the relationship between the challenged arbitrator as a non-executive director and UBS is far more remote than that between the operational Chairman, President, and CEO of a company and the company he serves. Not only that, the relationship between UBS and AWG’s co-claimants was more remote because UBS was only a trivial investor, in contrast to the ongoing service contract relationship at issue in Applied Indus. In any event, once the challenged arbitrator was made aware of UBS’s investment in AWG’s partners, she immediately withdrew from deliberations, sought confirmation from UBS regarding “the accuracy of the UBS shareholdings in the Claimants,” and disclosed that information as part of the underlying disqualification proceedings. See Second Disqualification Decision ¶¶ 13-14. In other words, upon being made aware of a potential conflict, even a trivial one, Professor Kaufmann-Kohler more than fulfilled her duty to investigate. See Applied Indus., 492 F.3d at 139 (stating that “[o]nce the arbitrator [i]s aware that a nontrivial conflict of interest might exist, the calculus change[s]” and “the arbitrator ha[s] a continuing duty to ensure that neither he nor his corporation ha[ve] a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the arbitration.”) (internal quotation marks omitted)). These efforts and actions taken by the challenged arbitrator in an abundance of caution confirms that the record here lacks any facts “that indicate improper motives.” Al-Harbi, 85 F.3d at 683. In sum, the “evident-partiality standard is, at its core, directed to the question of bias.” Scandinavian Reins. Co., 668 F.3d at 73. The record here does not objectively suggest that the challenged arbitrator had any reason to be biased against Argentina. Thus, the Court agrees with the conclusion of the two unchallenged arbitrators, whose decision is, in any event, due deference, that “[a]n objective analysis ... does not ... lead a reasonable, informed person to conclude that a justifiable doubt exists as to Professor Kaufmann-Kohler’s impartiality or independence” with respect to AWG. Second Disqualification Decision ¶ 24. C. The Tribunal Did Not Exceed Its Powers Argentina claims that the Tribunal exceeded its powers by failing to apply applicable law in its computation of damages and its evaluation of the necessity defense, warranting vacatur under the FAA’s § 10(a)(4). Close examination of these claims, however, demonstrates that the Tribunal acted well within its powers, and no vacatur is warranted on these grounds. The FAA authorizes vacatur of an arbitration award “where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). To succeed in vacating an award under § 10(a)(4), a party must demonstrate that the “arbitrator stray[ed] from interpretation and application of the agreement and effectively ‘dispense[d] his own brand of industrial justice.’ ” Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 671, 130 S.Ct. 1758 (quoting Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509, 532 U.S. 1015, 121 S.Ct. 1724, 149 L.Ed.2d 740 (2001) (per curiam)). “ ‘[I]t is particularly necessary to accord the narrowest of readings to the excess-of-authority provision of section 10(d). That provision does not, it must be stressed, confer on courts a general equitable power to substitute a judicial resolution of a dispute for an arbitral one.’ ” Kanuth v. Prescott, Ball & Turben, Inc., 949 F.2d 1175, 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (quoting Davis v. Chevy Chase Fin. Ltd., 667 F.2d 160, 165 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (analyzing prior version of statute when § “10(a)(4)” was numbered “10(d)”). The Supreme Court has cautioned that courts “have no business weighing the merits of the grievance [or] considering whether there is equity in a particular claim.” Garvey, 532 U.S. at 509, 121 S.Ct. 1724 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Deference to an arbitrator’s judgment applies, even if the court is convinced that the arbitrator “committed serious error.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Because the parties ‘bargained for the arbitrator’s construction of their agreement,’ an arbitral decision ‘even arguably construing or applying the contract’ must stand, regardless of a court’s view of its (de)merits.” Oxford Health Plans, 133 S.Ct. at 2068 (quoting Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., Dist. 17, 531 U.S. 57, 61, 121 S.Ct. 462, 148 L.Ed.2d 354 (2000)). Argentina simply cannot overcome this high hurdle requiring deference to the Tribunal’s determinations. 1. The Tribunal Did Not Exceed Its Power When It Awarded Damages Argentina argues that the Tribunal exceeded its powers in awarding damages, claiming that the Tribunal lacked authority (1) to award damages arising after the Concession Contract’s lawful termination in 2006, and (2) to calculate damages assuming that Argentina was required to ensure AASA’s viability. AWG counters that “[t]he two damages-related excess of power arguments presented in the Petition are nothing more than quarrels with the way the Tribunal assessed the evidence and applied the law.” Resp.’s Mem. at 39. Despite Argentina’s efforts to cloak its challenge to the amount of damages awarded as jurisdictional arguments under FAA § 10(a)(4), the Tribunal acted well within its authority in both interpreting the contractual terms between the parties and the amount of damages owed. Argentina concedes that “the Tribunal was only authorized to award damages for actions in violation of the BIT,” Pet. ¶ 74, which, in turn, required the Tribunal to look to “the applicable principles of international law,” UK-BIT, art. 8(4). Neither the UK-BIT itself, nor the UNCITRAL rules applicable here, expressly provide for awarding or calculating damages. In accordance with this direction in the UK-BIT, the Tribunal “look[ed] to customary international law for the legal principles that govern the determination of damages.” Final Award ¶ 23. As the Tribunal explained, the articulation of international law principles in the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) (“Articles”), which have been adopted by the United Nations’ International Law Commission (“ILC”), are “generally considered as a statement of customary international law” and “both parties in this case have relied [upon them] at various times.” Id. ¶ 24; see also id. ¶ 28 (“As both the Claimants and the Respondent in this case have agreed in their pleadings, the legal basis for awarding compensation in this case and the standard to be applied in determining the amount of that compensation is therefore to be found in international law; however, they do not agree on the specific content of the applicable international law principles and the way in which they should be applied to the precise facts of these cases. This Tribunal, like others, must therefore look to customary international law for the legal principles that govern the determination of damages in these cases.”) (footnote omitted)). Relying on these Articles, the Tribunal determined its mandate “to award ‘full compensation’ to the Claimants for the injuries caused by Argentina’s treaty violations, to seek ‘to wipe out all the consequences’ of Argentina’s illegal acts, and to place the Claimants ‘in the situation which would, in all probability, have existed’ if Argentina had not committed its illegal acts.” Id. ¶ 27. Moreover, it determined “the basic standard to be applied is that of full compensation [ ] for the loss incurred as a result of the intentionally wrongful act.” Id. Notably, Argentina does not question the Tribunal’s mandate under applicable principles of international law, but rather, Argentina challenges how the Tribunal calculated such damages. To assist with the calculation of damages, the Tribunal appointed an independent financial expert, Dr. Akash Deep, Senior Lecturer in Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University and a former Senior Economist of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland. Id. ¶ 12; see also Pet., Ex. L to the Slater Deck, AWG Grp. v. The Argentine Republic, Final Report of the Financial Expert to the Tribunal (July 22, 2013), ECF No. 1-15; Pet., Ex. M to the Slater Deck, AWG Grp. v. The Argentine Republic, Response to the Tribunal’s Query About the Failure of AASA (Sept. 21, 2014), ECF No. 1-16. The Tribunal determined, by applying customary international law principles on damages, that the process for calculating damages consisted of three steps: (1) “determine the value of the investment in the hypothetical situation where Argentina did not take measures that violated its treaty obligations,” (2) “determine the value of the investment as a result of the offending measures that Argentina did take,” and (3) “subtract the second value from the first and then actualize that amount by means of an appropriate interest rate to arrive at the damages owing to the Claimants so as to put them in the financial position they would have been [in] had Argentina not breached the applicable BITs.” Id. ¶ 28. The Tribunal noted that this damages calculation was complicated by the nature of the Claimants’ investments. Id. ¶ 29. In particular, the stream of revenue intended to compensate Claimants for their early-on investments “depended on many variables, both foreseen and unforeseen, over the next three decades, including population growth in the area, general economic conditions, technological changes, labor conditions, management efficiency, inflation, operating costs, and many others.” Id. To assist in accounting for these multiple variables, the Tribunal used an economic model, which was designed by Dr. Deep, and “sought to capture numerous relevant econom