to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy;" (3) the arbitrators exhibited "evident partiality” or "corruption;” or (4) the arbitrators were guilty of "misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown,” or guilty of "any other misbehavior" that prejudiced the rights of any party. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a). Banco does not argue that any of these other provisions apply. 11 . Banco claims that it is an instrumentality of a foreign state under the FSIA because it is wholly-owned by the government of the Republic of Uruguay. See Pet. Mem. at 5 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1603). Although MMO insists that "Banco has not set forth adequate grounds to assert that it is a foreign sovereign,” it accepts "for the purposes of this motion only that Banco is an Ur -*3 (<HOLDING>); but see Home Indemnity Co., 1997 WL 773712,
holding that arbitration panels order requiring defendant to post an interim letter of credit was reviewable award under the faa holding that arbitration panel did not violate fundamental fairness when it issued an interim award directing a defendant to post prejudgment security after holding an organizational meeting at which it received considered and discussed the parties statements of issues and heard verbal statements by the parties representatives holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties holding that faa was inapplicable where parties involved in action are not parties to an arbitration agreement under which issues are referable to arbitration holding that the state circuit court did not have the authority to award prejudgment interest for matters occurring prior to arbitration award