The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court (US no. 965), which had granted a motion to compel arbitration of claims against the first defendant/appellant and the motion of the appellees to confirm CIETAC awards. As to the motion to compel arbitration, the Court held that deference was owed to the factual finding of the lower court that the first defendant’s contention that he had not agreed to arbitration was disproved by the evidence; in any case, the Court added, the first defendant should have protected himself when signing the agreements containing the arbitration clauses, and could not invoke the fact that had not retained Chinese counsel or an impartial interpreter. As to the motion to confirm the awards, the first defendant could not argue that confirmation should be denied because the appellees commenced arbitration in China while their motion to compel arbitration was pending in the US courts. The Court explained that the FAA did not require that a party must move in court to compel arbitration before initiating arbitration, or that a court order on a motion to compel arbitration was a prerequisite for arbitration. The defense that the first defendant had been unable to present his case in the arbitration because of his poor health and limited financial resources was disproved by the record. The argument that confirmation would be against public policy was not explained, and in any case could not be heard because it was raised for the first time on appeal.