Ranger,
Not so fast with the "all options are fully available" idea.
From what I can figure out so far, courts hearing an arb enforcement motion have very restricted and limited authority re vacating or making changes to an arb ruling.
There are lots of legal conventions and precedents to be observed and respected. Both parties agreed to be bound by certain rules when they contracted for ICC arbitration under provisions of the NY Convention.
Here is an example of what I'm talking about taken from one of IDCC's recent filings in the Nokia enforcement proceeding;
................................................................................................
INTERDIGITAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS PETITION FOR ORDER CONFIRMING ARBITRATION AWARD
Date: October 14, 2005
Nokia Has Failed to Establish Any Ground for Vacatur And, Thus, the Award Must Be Confirmed As a Matter of Law Under the New York Convention, which governs this proceeding, a district court's role in reviewing an arbitral award is "'strictly limited' " and " 'the showing required to avoid summary confirmance is high.'"
See Compagnie Noga D'Importation et D'Exportation, S.A. v. Russian Fed., 361 F.3d 676, 683(2d. Cir. 2004).1 Specifically, the Federal Arbitration Act-which implements the New York Convention in the United States-provides that upon an application of a party to an arbitration award governed by the Convention, the district court "shall confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the award specified in the said Convention." See 9 U.S.C. § 207 (emphasis added).
As the party opposing confirmation, Nokia bears the heavy burden of proving that the Award should not be honored. See Russian Fed., 361 F.3d at 683. Nokia has not come close.
As detailed in InterDigital's previously submitted Opposition to Nokia's motion to vacate, Nokia has failed to establish any ground for vacating or otherwise avoiding confirmation of the Award. See InterDigital Opp. (submitted Aug. 29, 2005). The Award is logical, well reasoned and solidly grounded in law and in fact. Id.
Thus, for the foregoing reasons and all the reasons set forth in InterDigital's Opposition, the Court should deny Nokia's motion to vacate and summarily confirm the Award.
Dated: September 12, 2005 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
