The District Court rejected the respondent's objections to the recognition and enforcement of the two awards before it, finding that the respondent had not raised any grounds under Article V of the New York Convention. The respondent had raised three arguments to oppose the recognition and enforcement of the awards, namely (i) that the arbitrator lacked impartiality and had favoured the petitioner; (ii) that respondent did not have the financial ability to pay the awards; and (iii) that the petitioner had made certain admission in settlement discussions between the parties following the issuance of the award, which admissions, according to respondent, were sufficient reason to refuse enforcement of the awards. The Court dismissed the first objection on the basis that the allegations were unsubstantiated. As to the second objection, the Court ruled that financial inability of the award debtor is not a ground for refusal to enforce an award under the New York Convention. In relation to the third objection, the Court found that the parties' settlement discussions were not relevant to the question of whether the awards should be confirmed.