
    LINLEY INVESTMENTS, an Isle of Man Limited Company; Orpendale, Incorporated in the Republic of Ireland; Lynch Bages Limited, Incorporated in the Republic of Ireland; Wynatt, Incorporated in the Republic of Ireland; Chelston Ireland, Incorporated in the Republic of Ireland; Springcon, Incoporated in the Republic of Ireland Petitioners-Appellees, v. Jerry JAMGOTCHIAN, Respondent-Appellant.
    No. 14-56437
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 8, 2016 Pasadena, California
    Filed November 14, 2016
    James R. Morgan, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of James R. Morgan, Walnut Creek, CA, for Petitioners-Appellees.
    Kim Zeldin, Attorney, Liner LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.
    Before: WARDLAW and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BELL, District Judge.
    
      
      The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jerry Jamgotchian appeals the district court’s confirmation of the arbitration awards entered in favor of the appellees (collectively, “Coolmore”) in the United Kingdom. We affirm.

Courts must enforce foreign arbitration awards unless one of seven defenses enumerated in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards—better known as the “New York Convention”—applies. 9 U.S.C. § 207. In Jamgotchian’s view, three of those defenses preclude enforcement of the award against him. We disagree.

1. Jamgotchian asserts that he was not provided “proper notice” of the arbitration proceedings as required under the New York Convention. See N.Y. Convention art. V(1)(b), June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 38. In this context, “proper notice” means notice that is reasonably calculated .to apprise a litigant of arbitration proceedings. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). We have no doubt that the notices both Coolmore and the arbitrator sent by mail, email, and fax on numerous occasions over a six-month period were reasonably calculated to apprise Jamgotchian of the overseas arbitration instituted against him. Jamgotchian’s claim that he never received those notices is both incredible and unpersuasive.

2. Jamgotchian next argues that the arbitrator was not appointed “in accordance with the agreement of the parties,” N.Y. Convention, art. V(1)(d), because the appointing entity was the Thoroughbred Breeders Association (TBA) of the United Kingdom as opposed to the TBA of the Republic of Ireland. No evidence in the record supports Jamgotchian’s claim. In fact, just the opposite: A witness who has worked in the Irish racehorse industry for decades testified that “[i]t is the custom and practice in the thoroughbred industry in the Republic of Ireland that disputes regarding Nomination Agreements that require arbitration are handled through the Thoroughbred Breeders Association in England.” Even Jamgotchian himself stated in his declaration that “to [his] knowledge, there [is] no TBA in Ireland.” In light of that uncontradicted evidence, we reject Jamgotchian’s contention that the arbitration provisions referred to the TBA of the Republic of Ireland.

3.Finally, Jamgotchian claims that confirming the arbitration awards would offend the public policy of the United States, see N.Y. Convention art. V(2)(b), because the arbitrator was biased in Cool-more’s favor. That bias, Jamgotchian explains, arose from the arbitrator’s role in an- organization that collects registration fees in exchange for sponsoring horse races in which Coolmore’s horses participate. We are not persuaded. Any financial benefits the arbitrator may receive from dealing with Coolmore are so attenuated that no inference of bias can be made. See Woods v. Saturn Distrib. Corp., 78 F.3d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1996). Jamgotchian’s contention is therefore meritless.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . We also reject Jamgotchian's remaining contentions that concern the merits of the underlying dispute and are unrelated to the only defenses enumerated in the New York Convention. See China Nat'l Metal Prods. Imp. /Exp. Co. v. Apex Digital, Inc., 379 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Rather than review the merits of the underlying arbitration, we review de novo only whether the party established a defense under the [New York] Convention.”).
     