Opposition to foreign arbitral award recognition decrees cannot be configured as criticism of foreign decision merits, being limited to defects provided by regulations on foreign award recognition.
The circumstance that foreign arbitrators expressly addressed and resolved issues raised by parties, applying contractual discipline, does not constitute violation of adversarial rights, even when parties disagree with adopted solutions.
Those invoking adversarial process violations in foreign arbitral proceedings must specifically indicate regulatory norms governing foreign arbitral processes allegedly violated, being unable to limit themselves to generic allegations of procedural violations.
Mere dissatisfaction with interpretation and application of contractual clauses by foreign arbitrators does not constitute procedural public policy violations sufficient to prevent award recognition.
Application by foreign arbitrators of forfeiture clauses regarding invoice contestation authority, provided by contractual discipline, does not configure public policy violations when arbitrators expressly motivated such application while respecting adversarial principles.