whizzer; here's my thought process re NY filings.
The arbs issued a subpoena in October in TX requiring Ericsson's attendance on October 7 in Dallas. Ericsson refused to attend. (This exercise was repeated in NC with S/E with the same result). Subsequently, Nokia filed with the TX and NC courts to enforce those subpoenas.
On Dec. 20, the arbs offered to hear Ericsson in Dallas ("...in case a telephonic hearing would be of assistance in expediting the Ericsson subpoenas...)".
Although the arbs expressed the comment that they were not convinced of the usefulness of that hearing, they nevertheless did offer it. So, we know that in late December, the arbs were willing to assist Nokia get what it wanted. (Could be solely to reduce the reasons for appeal).
Fast forward to Jan. 17. We don't know if the Oct. subpoenas expired, are still valid, or whether the arb panel issued new ones requesting E-S/E's attendance on Jan. 17.
What I was looking for in NY was whether Nokia or the arbs were seeking a court order forcing E and S/E to attend. The absence of a motion or order might imply that E & S/E had voluntary agreed to attend or that Nokia had withdrawn its request. The absence could also imply lack of jurisdiction in NY, but E made the point that NY has jurisdiction.
If E-S/E did not agree to attend and if Nokia is still of the opinion that E and S/E's materials are relevant, then - given N's past aggressiveness - I would expect Nokia or the panel to seek court help in NY to get E's stuff.
I concur with your discovery/trial risk. JK
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
