In its first decision, the District Court denied the motion of Ukraine to file a supplemental briefing in support of its attempt to introduce a third ground for opposing confirmation of a French award rendered in favor of Tatneft, holding that Ukraine did not validly explain why it had failed to raise this defense when replying to the application to confirm the award. Further, this third ground, which was based on Art. V(1)(c) of the  Convention, could not be deemed to be related to the Art. V(1)(d) ground that Ukraine had raised, as these defenses were predicated on different subsections of Art. V. By the second decision, the Court granted confirmation of the award, finding that the fact that the president of the arbitral tribunal had failed to disclose that he had been appointed by the law firm for the plaintiff as arbitrator in an unrelated arbitration before the award was rendered, in violation of the disclosure provisions in the UNCITRAL Rules, under which the arbitration had been conducted, did not constitute a ground for refusal of confirmation under Art. V(1)(d).