With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". corporation wholly owned by the Government of Uruguay.” Resp. Opp. at 7. 12 . Banco argued to the Panel that it should not make a decision on prejudgment security without giving the parties an opportunity to engage in discovery and present their evidence at a hearing. See Banco's Statement of Position at 5-8. Notably, however, Banco has not argued here that the Panel's decision to deny this request deprived it of "fundamental fairness,” a valid basis for vacatur of an arbitration award. British Ins. Co. of Cayman, 93 F.Supp.2d at 517; see also Atlas Assurance Co. of Am., 1991 WL 4741, at *2. In any event, case law from this district suggests that the Panel did not deprive Banco of "fundamental fairness” in issuing the Orders. See British Ins. Co. of Cayman, 93 F.Supp.2d at 517-19 (<HOLDING>); Atlas Assurance Co. of Am., 1991 WL 4741, at

A: holding that no single factor controls and that all factors must be weighed in light of fundamental fairness and the circumstances of the case
B: holding that arbitrators denied defendant fundamental fairness by issuing an interim order requiring the posting of prejudgment security based on the parties statements of position as well as oral argument from counsel but without even a threshold review of the underlying dispute or its merits in relation to either partys case and without permitting discovery of files central and dispositive to the dispute before it
C: holding that a security award separable from the merits of the arbitration which was rendered prior to a hearing on the merits was sufficiently final to be reviewed under the faa
D: holding that arbitrators did not violate fundamental fairness by ordering prejudgment security based on the parties many long and forceful submissions although there was no oral argument and no hearing on the merits of the underlying claims or substantive defenses
D.