Woodward filed claims against the Underwriters in state court; the Underwriters removed the case to federal court under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act, and filed a motion to compel Woodward to arbitrate their claims in accordance with the arbitration clause in an insurance policy. Woodward moved to remand. The Court denied the remand motion, finding that the Woodward state-court claims were related to their claims governed by the arbitration clause. The Court also found that the arbitration clause was not NULL and void as a violation of public policy because it would force the parties to apply New York law, and Woodward would, therefore, not be able to claim bad-faith damages. The Court explained that Woodward failed to cite any support for its position that the arbitration clause violated public policy, and noted, moreover, the strong policy in both the United States and the Fifth Circuit in favor of enforcing arbitration clauses. Nor did the Insurers waive their right to arbitrate by issuing policy endorsements and amendments referring to the court of competent jurisdiction as determined by the Service of Suit Clause. These references did not amount to a "clear and unequivocal" waiver of arbitration. Having thus found that it had original jurisdiction under the FAA, the Court then compelled arbitration, finding that the four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were met: there was an agreement in writing within the meaning of the Convention, which provided for arbitration in the territory of a Convention signatory and arose out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which was considered commercial; and a party to the agreement was not an American citizen, or the commercial relationship had some reasonable relation with one or more foreign states.