Appellant appealed the confirmation of an arbitration award, contending that: (1) the contract required de novo review on appeal; (2) the award was in manifest disregard of law; (3) the arbitrator exceeded his authority in awarding consequential damages; and (4) the award was not “final and definite” as required by the Federal Arbitration Act. The court rejected the de novo review claim, citing the Supreme Court’s opinion in Hall Street Assoc., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., which held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not authorize expandable judicial review through contract. Although recognizing that some courts have questioned the continuing viability of the manifest disregard doctrine, the court affirmed the rejection of that challenge to the award on the basis that it was clear that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law. Characterizing the remaining contentions as asserting that the arbitrator had erred, the court held that it could not vacate an award merely because it was convinced that the arbitration panel made an erroneous legal ruling. Esso Exploration & Prod. Chad, Inc. v. Taylors Int’l Serv., Ltd., No. 06-5673 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2008).