The D.C. Circuit held in this case that a court, rather than an arbitral tribunal, decides whether a party is excused from complying with a precondition to arbitration. As the petition demonstrated and the four amicus briefs confirm, that ruling conflicts with this Court’s precedent and decisions of other circuits, and moreover is exceptionally important to arbitration. Indeed, that showing is so plainly correct that Argentina’s argument against certiorari depends on its attempt to rewrite the ruling below as if the court instead held that the parties had never reached an agreement to arbitrate in the first place. Argentina’s position is meritless for several reasons: (i) it misrepresents the D.C. Circuit’s holding; (ii) it is inconsistent with the facts established in the record – i.e., that BG accepted Argentina’s arbitration offer; and (iii) even if the basis for the D.C. Circuit’s decision had been the absence of an arbitration agreement, that decision would conflict with the decisions of other circuits. Because this case easily satisfies all of the criteria for this Court’s review, the petition should be granted.