Ranger
The first arbitration involved the trigger and rate setting. The ICC obviously believed that Nok has not been in default under the terms of the PLA ie. no royalty or sales reporting obligations until the rate has been set. Thus, the ICC could not rule on any matters that were not in default. Tea leaves have revealed that the ICC filled in the additional royalty obligation based on the E/SNE triggers. In doing so, they also set a schedule of rates based on sales production for Nok to apply in establishing the amount of its royalty obligations. They further established dates for reporting and payment for two purposes. The first is for sales production that has occurred. The second is for the good faith estimates and prepayment which would entitle Nok to the discounts created under the E/SNE royalty obligation provisions. Thus, the ICC has enterpreted the 1999 PLA trigger language under the arbitration provision and modified the PLA with a novation based on the MFL clause of same. At the time of the issuance of the final award, Nok was in good standing and in compliance under the terms and conditions of the original and modified version of the 1999 PLA. The ICC did what they could with what they had. Contingency contracts with MFL clauses are very difficult to handle. I tried to convince the board members that this was a complicated arbitration two years ago, but many thought I was being negative because I do not like the arbitration (baby splitting) process. Perhaps now they can see that it is complicated because Nok still cannot be determined to be in default until they violate a provision of the PLA by an action or inaction. The issue now is the enforceability if Nok becomes in default of the modified PLA and the authority of the Fed Dist Ct to deal with same.
MO
loop
