or eliminated by contract. Congress enacted the FAA to promulgate a “national policy favoring arbitration and [to] placet] arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts.... ” Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 443, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006); see also Hall St. Assocs., 552 U.S. at 581, 128 S.Ct. 1396. Although parties may tailor certain aspects of arbitration through private contract, and “courts must ... enforce [such contracts] according to their terms,” AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1745, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) (internal citations omitted), the Supreme Court has articulated limits on parties’ freedom to modify judicial review of arbitration awards. See Hall St. Assocs., 552 U.S. at 578, 128 S.Ct. 1396 (<HOLDING>); see also Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache
holding that a transcript is necessary if the asserted grounds for vacatur of arbitration award are grounded in the conduct of the proceeding holding that explanations of arbitration awards are not required holding that common law grounds such as manifest disregard of law and gross mistake were not valid grounds for vacatur of arbitration award as hall street forecloses any common law grounds for vacatur holding statutory grounds provided in sections 10 and 11 of the faa for vacating modifying or correefing arbitration award are exclusive and cannot be supplemented by contract holding that the statutory grounds for vacatur and modification of arbitration awards may not be supplemented by contract