The Brief: IDCC in essence states on page 11 that SAM seeks vacatur in refusing to hear relevant evidence (NOK settlement).
The brief touches on their collateral estoppel argument centering around SAM's belief that the Sam I decision should control rates during period two of the agreement. Unfortunately, all the allegations as to why the arb panel should only consider the Sam I decision on rates are redacted.
IMO, based upon the information available to us, it appears that Sam was trying to get the arb panel to hold that only the Sam 1 decision could set rates for perior 2. Therefore they feel the legal principleof collateral estoppel barred the second tribunal from setting rates for period 2. While ww still don't know the specifics of the argument, we now know what it is.
IDCC also points out to the court that SAM "manifest disregard of the terms of the agreement" argument should not be considered by the court as it is only applicable to labor cases and not commercial cases. This is a commercial case.
Finally, we now know that their mootness argument is based upon the fact that IDCC and NOK settled and did away with their prior agreements after the arb panel heard this dispute. They argue that as a result any award the panel made for IDCC is moot. In essence, SAM argues that the new agreement with NOK can't replace the prior obligations upon which IDCC says Sam owes it money.
IMO
G Hors
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
