The District Court granted the petitioner's motion to confirm the arbitral award, rejecting the respondent's contention that it was unable to present its case in the arbitration (Article V(1)(b) of the Convention). The respondent sought to resist enforcement of the arbitral award on the grounds that the panel had refused to postpone the hearing on respondent's request The Court held that it would not intervene with the panel's decision to proceed with the hearing if any reasonable basis for it existed. In the facts of the case, the Court found that the respondent had demonstrated its intention not to participate in the hearing before the panel (amongst others by forbidding its counsel to participate in the hearing, citing, at the last minute, medical reasons for non-appearance without providing any supporting evidence) and that, therefore, there was a reasonable basis for the panel to proceed with the hearing in respondent's absence - "the Respondent took a chance when he chose not to participate in an arbitral process to which he had agreed. That gambit failed; and the Court believes that Respondent should be held to live with the consequences of his choice. Put more precisely, because Respondent voluntarily walked away from the arbitration, he was not deprived of a fundamentally fair hearing when the Panel then resolved the case without Respondent's input".