proceedings on the securities fraud claim pending the arbitration panel’s decision on out-of-pocket damages. See 9 U.S.C. § 3. 4 . It is possible that the district court in the remand action erred when it declined to vacate the arbitration award after holding that the arbitration panel exceeded its powers. The Federal Arbitration Act allows district courts to vacate arbitration awards "where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter was not made.” 9 U.S.C, § 10(a)(4). This issue, however, is not a question presented to ■ this panel and, more importantly, it is not an issue that this panel would have appellate jurisdiction to review. See Murchison Capital Partners, L.P., 760 F.3d at 419, 423 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, the
holding that an order compelling arbitration in an independent proceeding is appealable as a final order because in that context the order compelling arbitration resolves the sole issue before the court holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants holding that an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial holding that order to vacate award and order new arbitration is the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial  and therefore not subject to direct appellate review quoting stothandske 14 sw3d at 814 holding that an order remanding an arbitration award is not a final appealable order when the order does not also vacate the arbitration award