MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I.

INTRODUCTION

The matters now pending before this court arise out of an arbitration conducted before a panel of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. Subsequent reference to the arbitrators and the sponsoring entity will be as “the Panel.” The Panel bifurcated the arbitration into two segments called, respectively, Phase 1 and Phase 2. The Panel rendered a final award which included extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law. The awards of the Panel were in favor of LaPine Technology Corporation and against Kyocera Corporation. LaPine Technology Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as “LaPine”), has petitioned this court to confirm the awards of the Panel upon them; Kyocera Corporation (“Kyocera”) opposes such confirmation and seeks this court’s order vacating, modifying and/or correcting the awards.

This court now orders that the Application for Confirmation be granted and that an appropriate judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, approved as to form by Defendant, be entered herein. This court further orders that the Application to Vacate, Modify and/or Correct the Awards is denied.

In the later-filed action numbered C-91-20159, Kyocera sues for a declaration that the Phase I award was not a final award and therefore not ripe for enforcement proceedings in the federal court or, in the alternative, for vacatur of the Phase I award. Claimants counterclaim for a declaration that the Phase I award was a final award and for confirmation of that award. The court finds the declaratory relief claim and counterclaim to be moot at this point and therefore dismisses them. The second counts of the claim and counterclaim, seeking vacatur and confirmation, are merged into the motions for the same relief made in Case No. C-87-20316 and are denied and granted respectively.

The foregoing disposition of the pending motions is necessitated because the court’s options are limited by the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 , et seq. and may not be extended by agreement of the parties.

A. THE PARTIES

In addition to LaPine and Kyocera, Prudential-Bache Trade Corporation (“Prudential Trade”), Prudential Capital and Investment Services, Inc. (“Prudential Capital”), and LaPine Holding Company (“LaPine Holding”) are parties to the arbitration proceeding before the court, and are parties to the counterclaim in the instant action. Only LaPine and Kyocera are initial parties to the instant action.

B.. THE FACTS

LaPine is a corporation formed in 1984 to design, market and sell 3.5 inch Winchester disk drive devices with a ten megabyte capacity. LaPine did not have the resources and plant necessary to manufacture and market the product. At the time of its incorporation, LaPine was financed by a limited partnership, the general partner of which was an affiliate of Prudential Trade, an entity in the business of financing international business ventures. LaPine and Prudential Trade approached Kyocera suggesting that Prudential Trade would arrange the financing necessary for the manufacture of La-Pine’s disk drive products if Kyocera, acting as a licensee of LaPine, would manufacture the product. In November 1984 LaPine, Prudential Trade and Kyocera entered into an Agreement of Principles under the terms of which LaPine was to design and market the disk drive product, Prudential Trade was to finance the manufactured output of Kyoc-era which was in compliance with the schedule of product agreed upon by the parties. Prudential Trade was also obligated to provide necessary working capital related to product and to accounts receivable financing. Subsequently, in 1985, the same parties and a subsidiary of Prudential Trade executed the Trading Agreement, which covered sales of the LaPine product after its manufacture by Kyocera, and the Technology Transfer and Manufacturing Agreement, covering the licensing of LaPine technology to Kyocera.

The parties agreed that LaPine would order the disk drive product from Kyocera pursuant to a quantity and delivery schedule. A subsidiary of Prudential Trade would purchase the product from Kyocera, then resell the product at a markup to Prudential Trade which would then resell the product to La-Pine on credit.

LaPine licensed to Kyocera a recently developed 3.5 inch Winchester disk drive with twenty megabyte capacity, and production commenced in late 1985. On January 18, 1986, LaPine, Kyocera and Prudential Trade, acting through its subsidiary K.K. PB Trade Corporation (“KK Trade”), entered into an agreement which provided certain actions to be taken by the parties in 1986, including an obligation on the part of KK Trade to maintain the then current level of funding of LaPine until the latter achieved “break even” status and to facilitate communication between the parties. In 1986 Kyocera experienced production problems which necessitated a shutdown of two months duration. Management problems at LaPine were encountered in 1986, which resulted in Kyoc-era’s request for assurances that it would be paid for goods manufactured and shipped by it, pursuant to the terms of the agreements between the parties. The root of the problem was the failure of LaPine to make payments to Prudential Trade enabling the latter to pay Kyocera for goods manufactured and shipped by it. By summer of 1986 La-Pine had failed to pay Prudential Trade for product delivered by Kyocera, and was insisting that Prudential Trade continue to pay Kyocera for product ordered by LaPine.

In order to bring about a refinancing and reorganization of LaPine the parties entered into negotiations to reach an agreement which would ensure both the development of LaPine and a workable commercial relationship between all the parties. In August 1986 a document entitled “Agreement in Principle” between Kyocera and Prudential Trade was forwarded by Prudential Trade to Kyoc-era for its consideration. This proposed agreement provided for an advance to La-Pine by Prudential Trade of up to ten million dollars, secured by unfactored accounts receivable of LaPine, and that Prudential Trade would continue to buy and pay for disk drive product purchased from Kyocera for resale to LaPine. The proposed agreement contained the agreement of Kyocera to sell all LaPine products manufactured by it to Prudential Trade in accordance with a schedule of payment. The proposed Agreement in Principle also provided that all losses associated with uncollected LaPine receivables would be shared evenly by Prudential Trade and Kyocera.

On October 9, 1986, LaPine, Prudential Trade, KK Trade, the limited partnership which initially organized LaPine and Kyocera executed and delivered an Agreement in Principle which purported to restructure La-Pine and to obligate the parties to negotiate the terms of a proposed Definitive Agreement (“DA”). This proposed Definitive Agreement was to be submitted to the respective boards of the corporate parties for final approval and, by its terms, was required to be signed by November 12, 1986. The proposed DA provided additionally that nothing contained in other agreements would be binding upon the parties until the execution, delivery and board approval of the Definitive Agreement.

The Agreement in Principle provided for the reorganization of LaPine by means of a “merger” by which LaPine would become the wholly owned subsidiary of LaPine Holding Company of which two-thirds of the voting stock would be owned by Prudential Trade and one-third by Kyocera. Prudential Trade and Kyocera were to be obligated to make additional capital contributions and other adjustments. While these provisions were stated to be non-binding, the Agreement in Principle contained binding provisions for the liquidation of LaPine if its operations were unsuccessful, for access to information and confidentiality, and for the selection of arbitration as the appropriate means of settling disputes arising under either the Agreement in Principle or the Definitive Agreement.

Commencing in early November 1986, revised drafts of a proposed Definitive Agreement, a proposed Financing Agreement and proposed revisions of the Trading Agreement and of the Technology Transfer and Manufacturing Agreement were prepared and circulated to counsel. On November 13, 1986, the parties completed the collection of the various signature pages to the proposed Definitive Agreement, including one purportedly signed by the chairman of Kyocera, and the DA was then filed with the California Corporations Commissioner in order to com ply with California law concerning corporate reorganization.

On November 14, 1986, certain revised pages of the Definitive Agreement, the Amended Trading Agreement, the Financing Agreement and the Amended Technology Transfer and Manufacturing Agreement were circulated to all parties and their counsel. Also on that date, eight signature pages for the Definitive Agreement, not including the one previously signed by Kyocera’s chairman, were forwarded to Kyocera in Japan for signature and return. Those signature pages were never returned by Kyocera.

On December 17 and 18, 1986, Kyocera’s attorney met with attorneys for the other parties in a “pre-closing” meeting. Kyoc-era’s attorney at that time advised that Kyocera declined to sign the Amended Trading Agreement and the Financing Agreement prepared by Prudential Trade because those agreements provided for direct sale of manufactured product to LaPine without the intervening sales to KK Trade and Prudential Trade.

On December 18, 1986, also at the pre-closing meeting, a representative of Kyocera executed the eight copies of the signature page to the Definitive Agreement, and also executed all exhibits to the Definitive Agreement except the Amended Trading Agreement in the form proposed by Prudential Trade. On December 22, 1986, Kyocera’s counsel advised the parties that although Kyocera would participate in the final closing meeting set for December 29, 1986, it would not execute and deliver the proposed Amended Trading Agreement and the Financing Agreement. On December 26, 1986, Kyoc-era’s counsel advised the parties that Kyoc-era would sign a version of the Amended Trading Agreement providing that Prudential Trade remained the party responsible to pay Kyocera for disk drive product supplied by Kyocera to LaPine.

On December 29, 1986, the closing took place and all documents which constituted exhibits to the Definitive Agreement were executed and delivered between the parties except the Amended Trading Agreement. LaPine and Prudential Trade declined to sign the form of Amended Trading Agreement previously circulated by Kyocera.

By an Interim Agreement dated December 29, 1986, the parties agreed to proceed with the closing of the LaPine reorganization even though the Amended Trading Agreement had not been executed. All rights were reserved with respect to that agreement, and the parties agreed to future meetings to attempt to resolve their differences.

On December 29, 1986, counsel for LaPine and Prudential Trade gave notice by letter to Kyocera of Kyocera’s breach of the Definitive Agreement by reason of Kyocera’s failure to execute the Amended Trading Agreement proposed by counsel for LaPine and Prudential Trade.

On January 9,1987, the Board of Directors of Kyocera approved its investment in La-Pine under the Plan for Reoi’ganization but did not approve the form of Amended Trading Agreement proposed by Prudential Trade.

On May 8, 1987, LaPine filed this action seeking to compel Kyocera to continue to supply drives under the terms of the Definitive Agreement. On September 2, 1987, this court granted Kyocera’s motion to compel arbitration. Now before the court are La-Pine’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and Kyocera’s motion to vacate that award.

II.

DISCUSSION

A. SCOPE OF REVIEW

As it turns out, after extensive arguments and briefing of multiple issues, the threshold issue of the scope of review is wholly determinative of these motions.

Kyocera places primary reliance for its position that a United States District Court, in deciding whether to confirm or to vacate an arbitration award, is bound to exercise the breadth of review provided for by the agreement between the parties upon which the arbitration is grounded upon two cases: Fils et Cables d’Acier de Lens v. Midland Metals Corp., 584 F.Supp. 240 (S.D.N.Y.1984) and Gateway Technologies, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 64 F.3d 993 (5th Cir.1995). I will take up the Fils case first. That case is apt and strongly supports Kyocera’s contention. In that case the court recognizes:

Fils, supra, 584 F.Supp. at 242 .

There, the contract provided in paragraph 13(c):

In the instant case the document providing for arbitration is the Definitive Agreement. Exhibit H to Phase 1 Findings of Fact. Section 8.10(b) of that agreement provides:

In Fils, supra, 584 F.Supp. at 243 , the court confronts the question of scope of review as follows:

The court in Fils went on to find that the provisions of § 13 did not confer a broader species of jurisdiction upon the reviewing court, because that court had “constitutional and statutory jurisdiction” because of the diversity of the parties’ citizenship, and that no public policy tenets are violated by the provisions of § 13 because, in the Fils case, the court’s review of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is “clearly a far less searching and time consuming inquiry than a full trial.” Id. at 244.

This court disagrees with the Fils court on both points of its decisional justification, and, in consequence, declines to follow it.

The policies underlying arbitration are well defined in many cases and are well reflected in the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, and in particular in those dealing with scope of review.

In Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 v. Chicago Sum-Times, 935 F.2d 1501 (7th Cir.1991), the court said with respect to scope of review by a federal court of an arbitration award:

Id. at 1505 .

While a court may have subject matter jurisdiction over the substance of a cause subject to arbitration, whether under diversity jurisdiction or otherwise, its power to adjudicate in the exercise of that jurisdiction, particularly where conferred by statute as here, cannot be changed or altered by the agreement of the parties. The role of the federal courts cannot be subverted to serve private interests at the whim of contracting parties.

Kyocera argues that the author of the Chicago Typographical opinion, Judge Posner, altered or “took back” his statements with respect to scope of review therein by his holdings in two subsequent cases. The first of these is DDI Seamless Cylinder v. General Fire Extinguisher, 14 F.3d 1163 (7th Cir.1994). In that case the parties, by their agreement, converted a federal magistrate judge into an arbitrator and conferred upon him the power to render a binding award on certain issues. In disapproving this procedure, Judge Posner wrote:

Id. at 1165 .

The court recognized that parties to judicial proceedings may agree to simplify those proceedings as in an agreement to submit a cause upon stipulated facts or by agreeing to waive argument, but found that arbitration and adjudication are modes of dispute resolution that are distinct from each other. From the totality of the holding it may be gleaned that parties may fully regulate by agreement the conduct of arbitration proceedings: they may agree to simplify the subsequent adjudicatory process by stipulation, but they may not enlarge the adjudicatory process by enlarging the limits upon it set by statute. This would amount to statutory amendment by private persons. This court finds nothing in DDI which is contradictory of Chicago Typographical on the issue of judicial review.

The second Judge Posner ease said to limit or “take back” his holding in Chicago Typographical is Baravati v. Josephthal, Lyon & Ross, Inc., 28 F.3d 704 (7th Cir.1994), which is a National Association of Securities Dealers arbitration case. There, Judge Posner says:

Id. at 706 [citations omitted].

In that connection the court rejected a standard employed in some circuits that included a possible finding that the arbitrators exhibited a “manifest disregard of the law,” saying, “[T]he grounds for setting aside arbitration awards are exhaustively stated in the statute.” Id. The court found no reason to continue a nonstatutory supplementation such as that embodied in the “manifest disregard of the law” criteria. Id.

This court finds no expression in Baravati which can be said to limit the holding in Chicago Typographical.

Since the submission of this matter, Kyoc-era has directed the court’s attention to the recent Fifth Circuit decision in Gateway Technologies, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 64 F.3d 993 (5th Cir.1995). In that case, which reviewed an arbitration award, the parties had contractually agreed that the arbitrator’s award would be final and binding on both parties, “except that errors of law shall be subject to appeal.” Id. at 995 . The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that

Id. at 997 .

The Fifth Circuit further held, at footnote 3,

Id.

The parties have consented to claimant’s request that this court take judicial notice of the briefs of the parties filed in Gateway together with the unpublished District Court decision from which the Gateway appeal was taken. Judicial notice is accordingly taken.

In the opening brief of Appellant MCI at pages vi and xiii, appellant requests oral argument on the issue, inter alia, of whether the district court, on vacatur and confirmation proceedings can reform the parties’ judicial review provision as included in the Agreement to Arbitrate; at page 4 appellant alleges that the district court refused to give effect to the parties’ agreed “errors of law” standard of review; in pages 13-19 Appellant MCI argues that the district court reviewed the purported errors of law presented to it with a less strict scrutiny than that generally employed in appellate review.

In its brief Appellee Gateway, at page 12, states

In its Reply Brief, pages 1-5, Appellant MCI argues that, notwithstanding Gateway’s contention that the arbitrator did follow the contractually agreed standard of review, in fact a lesser degree of scrutiny was employed.

The thrust of claimant’s contention which led to the above consideration of the briefs and district court opinion is that the Gateway decision is without precedential value because there was no contested issue with respect to the scope of judicial review before the court, the parties being in agreement with respect to the contractual language.

It is clear, however, that there was disagreement between the parties as to the “harmless error” standard of review actually employed by the district judge, which chosen standard is simply the high end of a spectrum ranging from a refusal to accord review at all to some standard of diminished review as illustrated in the case. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals fully explicates its view of the scope of review as a creature of contract together with its view of the policy underlying the FAA. Irrespective of words in appel-lee’s brief from which the absence of a contested issue can be inferred, clearly there was a contested issue. This is illustrated in appellee’s brief at pages 12 and 13 where Gateway argues in support of the review accorded by the district court. This view was rejected by the Fifth Circuit Court, and the opinion of that court on the scope of review cannot be relegated to mere dictum.

The decisions in Gateway, supra, and Chicago Typographical, supra, do not jibe, are inconsistent with each other and contra to each other. Gateway deals with a situation more factually similar to that of the instant case than are the two factual configurations present in Chicago Typographical, but the Fifth Circuit reaches a result which, in this court’s view, is not only inconsistent with Chicago Typographical but also, equally importantly, with the public policy considerations (discussed below) which delineate the functions of judicial and nonjudicial decisional forums. This court does not find that such cases as Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1212 , 131 L.Ed.2d 76 (1995) and Volt Information Sciences, supra, 489 U.S. 468 , 109 S.Ct. 1248 , which concern the powers of disputing parties to contractually specify matters pertaining to the subject matter and rules of arbitration between them, helpful because they do not deal with contractually agreed appellate review of arbitration awards. As stated in Chicago Typographical, the parties may contract freely with respect to the manner in which they may arbitrate their disputes, but enlargement of judicial powers of review by contract does not lie within their competence.

This court is satisfied that the parties may not by agreement alter by expansion the provisions for judicial review contained in the Federal Arbitration Act.

In addition to its citation of Fils and Gateway, and its criticism of the Posner decisions just discussed, Kyocera cites also Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 9 Cal.4th 362 , 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 (1994), wherein the California Supreme Court articulates the California Court’s Scope of Review in this fashion:

Id. at 372-373, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 [citations omitted].

The court also had occasion to say: “Consequently the dissent’s approach would require judicial reexamination of the award’s legal and factual sufficiency, an enterprise we disapproved in Moncharsh.” Id. at 390, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 .

This court finds nothing in the AMD majority opinion which places that ease in the same camp as Fils.

On balance, this court’s examination of the California cases does not suffice to compel this court to a different conclusion than that herein expressed. It is worthy of note that while arbitration is non-judicial dispute resolution, confirmation or vacation is not part of such a proceeding, but is a judicial act provided for by statute.

Section 8.10 of the Definitive Agreement expands the limits of the exercise of the subject matter jurisdiction over these alternative motions to confirm or to vacate or modify the Panel’s award. The provisions of that section assume the prerogative of Congress, in that they presume to direct this court as to the substance and parameters of its exercise of judicial power.

Therefore, there is a jurisdictional barrier to the implementation of § 8.10 in the fashion that its authors intended.

An even more serious obstacle to the validity of § 8.10 is grounded in public policy. In Fils the court found that public policy was not offended by its enlargement of its statutorily granted scope of review because, although the role of the court in examining the substance of the evidence and the verity of the legal conclusions was greatly expanded by the court’s enforcement of the parties’ agreement, the court’s task was nonetheless less time consuming and procedurally less complicated than would have been a trial. In consequence, the Fils court concluded, public policy in favor of arbitration as a quick and informal alternative mode of dispute resolu tion was not offended. While that finding may arguably have been true in the Fils situation, it is certainly not true in the instant case, where a court conducting its review in the fashion contemplated by § 8.10 would be conducting a replay of a fact finding process which took about four years to accomplish and produced a record of substantial magnitude, including hundreds, if not thousands, of exhibits. Judicial review of these proceedings, which were apparently unaided by the various modalities available to district courts to narrow issues and facilitate ultimate disposition, simply does not comply with the benefits usually contemplated by those who favor arbitration as an effective form of alternative dispute resolution.

It appears to this court that the contractual provisions existing in this case wherein the parties choose and specify the scope of judicial review to pertain in their arbitration is offensive to the public policy which supports arbitration and those aspects of arbitration which are beneficial to the parties as well as to the courts whose responsibilities are eased by alternative forms of dispute resolution.

B. SEVERABILITY

Next, the court must consider whether the unenforceability of the scope of review clause renders the entire agreement unenforceable. Kyocera is of the view that the scope of review clause as included in the Arbitration Agreement is an integral part of the arbitration provision, and there is no basis to suppose that the parties would have agreed to arbitrate at all, absent that provision.

The claimants’ contention is that the scope of review comes into play only when the arbitration has concluded, and has no role in the arbitration process itself. They also argue that Kyocera would have arbitrated no matter what, rather than subject itself to the financial and liability hazard of trial by jury.

Generally a clause of a contract is not severable where it is an integral part of an entire contract, that is when the terms of the portion to be severed appear to be interdependent and common to the remaining terms. Graham Oil Co. v. ARCO Produets Co., a Division of Atlantic Richfield Co., 43 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir.1994). In that ease the majority, in denying severance, held that certain clauses in an arbitration agreement were blatantly illegal and were a part of an “integrated scheme” to contravene public policy. The instant case is not susceptible to such a characterization, and presents a clear cleavage in its terms between the arbitration procedure to be conducted by the arbitrators and the review of the arbitration procedure to be conducted by the court. These functions have nothing in common with respect to the manner in which the individual functions are performed.

Motivations of the parties in contracting for the defined scope of judicial review are unknown to the court and the parties offer nothing but speculative suggestion on this score.

The contents of § 8.10(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Definitive Agreement are clearly severable.

Because I find that the scope of review provisions of Section 8.10(d) are severable and since, as concluded in Part A above, no expanded review is permissible, the decision to confirm or vacate the Panel’s award must turn on the statutory grounds contained in 9 U.S.C. § 10 . I turn to that question in the following section.

C. FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT REVIEW

At the outset the court notes that Kyocera’s only argument for vacatur on the permissible statutory grounds made in its Motion to Vacate took the form of seven vague references all contained in footnotes. The substance of its FAA argument appears in its opposition to Claimants’ Motion to Confirm. However, the only allowable defense to a confirmation motion is that the award is vacated Not that the award is vacatable. 9 U.S.C. § 9 . These arguments should have been made in the Motion to Vacate and, since they were not, they are untimely. However, in an abundance of caution, the court addresses these arguments below as an alternative ground for denial of the Motion to Vacate. None have merit.

Kyocera contends that the Panel exceeded its powers under 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(4) by rendering an award with legal and factual error; that the Panel failed to hear pertinent and material evidence and thus deprived Kyocera of defenses to alleged formation and breaches of contract in violation of 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(3); and that the parties did not intend to be bound by a legally erroneous and factually insufficient award, and that, if the award is unreviewable under all the provisions of § 8.10, then it was procured by undue means in violation of § 10(a)(1). For all these reasons, Kyocera contends the award should be vacated.

1. Did The Panel Exceed Its Powers? (§ 10(a) (i))

Section 8.10(b) of the Definitive Agreement provides:

Section 8.10(d) of the Definitive Agreement provides:

Kyocera contends that the Submission Agreement directs the Panel to follow the terms of agreement, and expressly denies them the power to ignore the law (the power of amiable composituer), and denies them the power to award relief which is beyond the scope of the parties’ agreement or beyond the applicable law (the power of ex aequo et bono).

Kyocera cites the Ninth Circuit case of Western Employers Ins. Co. v. Jefferies & Co., Inc., 958 F.2d 258 (9th Cir.1992), in which the appellate court reversed a district court order dismissing a petition to vacate an arbitration award where the underlying arbitration agreement required the arbitrators to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, which they did not do in the rendition of their award. The court said:

Id. at 262. Kyocera argues that the Panel here admitted that it failed to base its award upon the Agreement in Principle and thus the award cannot be confirmed because the Panel failed to follow the dictates of the parties.

This case does not help Kyocera, however, because in fact the Panel did consider the Agreement in Principle and concluded that it was superseded by the Definitive Agreement. See Phase I Award, p. 69. Therefore, the Panel was not required to actually rely upon an agreement it found to be superseded. Yet, by considering the Agreement in Principle at all, it did fulfill the mandate that it “decide matters submitted based upon ... the Agreement in Principle.”

Next, Kyocera claims that the Panel failed to base its award upon the Definitive Agreement. In support of this contention it cites five instances where the Panel allegedly misinterpreted the terms of the DA and its subsidiary agreements. See Kyocera’s Oppo. to Motion to Confirm, pp. 11-12. Failing to apply the agreements in the manner preferred by Kyocera does not amount to a failure to decide the matters submitted based upon the Definitive Agreement. See National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry., 551 F.2d 136, 141-142 (7th Cir.1977). The court will not examine the Panel’s interpretation of the agreements in a § 10 review of the award.

Lastly, under this subsection, Kyoc-era attempts to argue that the Panel misapplied California law in reaching its conclusions and thus “exceeded its power” to render an award “based upon ... the laws of California.” This is nothing other than an attempt to bootstrap a “legally erroneous” standard of review. The Panel clearly did apply California law. It did not apply Texas law or Wisconsin law. Kyocera is arguing for a requirement that the Panel apply California law without error. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that an arbitration panel’s award must be confirmed

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 943 F.2d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir.1991).

There are no grounds for vacatur under 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(4).

2. Did the Panel Refuse to Hear Pertinent and Material Evidence? (§ 10(a)(3))

Kyocera argues that the Panel departed from the arbitration provision and the terms of reference by bifurcating the issues of the existence and validity of the purported contracts from the issues of breach and fraud, thus leading to the virtual exclusion of evidence relevant and material to Kyocera’s interpretation of the contracts in question.

In directing the bifurcation the Panel excluded from Phase 1 evidence those items having to do with “performance” of contracts as well as evidence concerning events which occurred “post 1986.”

Kyocera claims that it was precluded from offering in Phase 2 evidence as to the meaning of contractual terms, notably the pricing provision, on the basis that such meaning had been previously determined in Phase 1, where that evidence had been rejected as well, and upon the further ground that the evidence was improperly found to be barred by the California Parol Evidence Rule.

The grounds for vacatur contained in § 10(a)(3) are these:

The briefs before this court do not identify with particularity which proffered items of evidence were rejected by the Panel. However, as the court understands it, it is Kyoc-era’s contention that rulings of the Panel precluded its consideration of certain evidence said to be relevant and material. This court does not understand it to be contended that there was an actual refusal to hear such evidence or that Kyocera received no arbitral consideration in the making of rulings. Since there was no “refusal,” there is no basis for vacatur under § 10(a)(3).

3. Was the Award Procured By Undue Means? (§ 10(a)(1))

Kyocera contends also that it is entitled to vacation of the award because it was procured by undue means.

In making this contention Kyocera relies upon 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(1) which provides that an award procured by undue means may be vacated. Kyocera interprets the language of that section as “denying confirmation” if procured by undue means.

Kyocera claims that claimants perpetrated a fraud upon both Kyocera and the Panel by:

Kyocera contends that if claimants’ present position with respect to judicial review is accepted by the court, as it is, then each of the foregoing were false and their falsity was not discoverable prior to or during arbitration.

In Lafarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 791 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir.1986), the Ninth Circuit sets forth the showing necessary to obtain vacatur of an arbitration award for fraud:

Id. at 1339 .

Even if the inclusion of the judicial review clause in § 8.10, and subsequent reference to it in the course of the arbitration can be classified as a species of misrepresentation, the contention that this must lead to the vacating of the award flunks the second and third elements set forth in Lafarge.

Furthermore, in A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. McCollough, 967 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir.1992), the Ninth Circuit has said that there must be a showing that undue means caused the arbitration award to be given. There is no showing whatever, or even contention, that the scope of review clause caused the award to be given. Thus, no grounds exist for vacatur (or for denying confirmation) under 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(1).

For the foregoing reasons this court concludes that there has been no compelling reason shown for vacatur of the award under any of the grounds specified in the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10 .

III.

CONCLUSION

In sum, because Kyocera’s Motion to Vacate is denied for the reasons set out above, claimants’ Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award must be granted under the terms of 9 U.S.C. § 9 .