This Memorandum Opinion from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia adjudicates cross-petitions to vacate and confirm an international arbitral award rendered against the Dominican Republic. The procedural posture involves the Court's de novo review of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which advised denying the Dominican Republic's petition for vacatur and granting Respondent Michael Anthony Lee-Chin's cross-petition for confirmation and enforcement under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

The principal legal issues concern the grounds for vacatur of an international arbitral award under the FAA. The Dominican Republic (Petitioner) challenged the award, which found that the state's termination of a landfill management agreement constituted an expropriation and a breach of the fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard under the governing treaty. Petitioner sought vacatur primarily on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the arbitrability of the claims, exceeded its authority under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4), and committed a manifest error in the damages calculation warranting modification under 9 U.S.C. § 11. Respondent countered that the high standard for vacatur was not met and sought summary confirmation of the award.

The Court's reasoning is grounded in the strong federal policy favoring the enforcement of arbitral awards. It adopted the Magistrate Judge's finding that the parties had “clearly and unmistakably” delegated the question of arbitrability to the tribunal, citing both the treaty's jurisdictional language—analogous to that in *BG Grp., PLC v. Republic of Argentina*—and Petitioner's own conduct in requesting a bifurcated hearing on jurisdiction. The Court further held that the tribunal did not exceed its authority, as it provided a reasoned interpretation of the treaty in its jurisdictional and merits determinations, consistent with the standard articulated in *Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter*. The Court also rejected challenges under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3) for procedural unfairness and found no basis for modification under § 11, characterizing the tribunal's selection of a discount rate as a “deliberate choice” within its authority, not a correctable mathematical error.

The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The operative ruling denies the Dominican Republic's Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award, grants Lee-Chin's Cross-Petition for Confirmation of the Arbitral Award, and denies Lee-Chin's request for attorneys' fees.