commercial arbitration awards that conflict with and compel the violation of direct orders of the south korean government those orders carried out through korea's executive agencies and its courts held the party's attempted sale of a strategic asset a space launch in flight vehicle and satellite with hike high performance telecommunications transponders violated multiple laws including critically the nation's foreign trade act those agencies rendered the transaction oil and void they imposed corrective actions on katie sent and they levied criminal sanctions against key executives executives involved in the deal we heard anything from the state department of the korean itself with regard to that no your honor there is nothing on the record from either our state department or the government of korea however korea's acted through them and p with risp with the two orders that it issued it also acted through its ministry of trade case and it's hard to put this all in the context you don't give us an overarching context of what kind of regulatory schemes there are international conventions it's not here in the breeze we have no obviously there is some governmental involvement and we know that the korean government began to object two to three years after the fact even though it obviously knew about it for some time prior to that and and were and then were frankly with the problem of your own making with all due respect to you because of page six hundred and eleven of the appendix your predecessor specifically suggested that perhaps the legitimacy of the administrative agencies determination korea should not be determined in a korean court where i would think we would have to really think about comedy issues but that it should be submitted to the arbitrators is the problem of your own making have haven't you put yourself on the wrong ship already know you are with respect to the letter it's that's us that the arbitration violates issues of comedy with regard to korea we think you just protest too much your honor the arbitration was to decide the validity of the contract in light of b s and then it was on a says give us back the satellite you give us back the satellite and then we'll work it out with korea well i can understand why a b s wasn't so interested in giving you back the saddle your honor the  notwithstanding what the letter said that was the end of the letter cannot change the scope of the party's arbitration agreement as set forth in the operations agreement and the purchase contract so when when one party says to another party who is talking about arbitration let's put this issue before the arbitrator that party reserves the right later on to say it was beyond the arbitrators authority to make a decision the very decision that they asked for your are one party could rely upon the representations of another yes your honor will get respect and eleven though we take a different understanding of the latter ok we do not think that the parties ever agreed to submit the validity of korea's governmental actions to arbitration and that's further because there was no chance of success on appeal orders have never been appealed there's no nothing in the record to suggest there's ever been an appeal of an s or ever let alone one that's been successful our our not to unwind the party's transaction and to allow a b s to continue to operate ration panel concluded that even assuming the order is as mandatory law it was concerned about the  that was put before the arbitrator to resolve it wasn't briefed it wasn't submitted it wasn't teed up in the to order comes two years after the transaction and and it's now being used to undermine the transaction after the fact yes your honor except the law those obligation was it to get the approval assuming approval was required there are put there are approval requirements on both sides there's no question that the there is an obligation for katie to obtain approval but if you look at section five of the agency applied the foreign trade act was on the books as were the regulations requiring a permit for a satellite like those that were on the books before that parties undertook their transaction so there was really no exposed application of the of the law when they're going to enforce laws they did here they didn't enforce it against the prior satellite they chose one source it here they have to make discretionary choices and that shouldn't really matter when that decision i'm can you explain that decision what with the distinction lies i know you're saying they have you know this is the this is their decision making prominent but can you explain for whatever reason they didn't take action against cas to then we took action against cancer he was the one that that was transferred and cause a political firestorm that's when the regulators stopped and they opted at the time although i will point out that moti in fact in its ruling regarding permits you said that a problem with the briefs i mean i keep wondering what it is that korea can and can't do right now to the satellite has a relationship to telecommute cations capabilities and it's and it occupies a slot that's done a fide for the republic of korea republic of south korea and so therefore that and i know that there's a un accord because it's mentioned very briefly in your and your papers but i have no idea how all this fits in the broader scheme of things and these are geosynchronous satellites and i know that my foot can tell me wherever i am on a given morning in central park with within forty feet because of because of those things makes me feel a little nervous at times but it gives me some comfort also feel lost but but the fact the matter is is that there's a lot of  you had to get some government approvals then did you have unlimited control of well i think an answer that i can give you that i really think is a good answer although not a very satisfying one is that these subject matters were extensively dealt with in an arbitration proceeding well and it went for literally for five years in it is very challenging because i take your criticism because what we're listening to are factual arguments in the papers and the oral submissions some of those factual arguments are arguments that were made in the arbitration i with respect they would say they must be very difficult for you to follow this isn't my st satellite case and it is still very difficult for me to deal with the subject matter of the satellites and then you add the overlay here which which which by my friend mr warner described at the at the hearing as a political firestorm in korea so all of the ordinary politics in conventions are part of that political firestorm this resulted in enormous focus by the tribunal on things like this there's something called the international to left in the union which regulates frequency allocation that is one part of an international regular there were extensive submissions there were expert submissions several of them on each side and some of these very questions so it's very difficult in this appellate context to address the substance of what was really the subject of the arbitration and we also have extensive factual arguments being yours have enormous reach out capabilities to miki miki priest here would have helped enormously putting this into the context because i have a feeling this happens that there are these kinds of commercial disputes more often than not  or that they happen with some frequency and so therefore i'm here certain doing new york law and arbitration boards and i'm wondering about you know i don't want to mess things up but right now all to i've got the law that i need to deal with and i'll take your one less thing has to the i take it your view you mentioned their expert didn't agree or didn't couldn't run route conclusion as to whether on the site had jurisdiction really the foreign trade act in the question of permitted approval their expert took the position and i believe it was also the stated position acknowledged by katie during the arbitration that that was a motif function not an m s i p function  ip is involved in the question of frequency use the real dispute in this arbitration was not what was the fact that that m s i p directed that the satellite could no longer be used consistent with the frequency allocations to serve the business of a b s mody is the entity that has responsibility for administering the f d a permits didn't require them with respect to the earlier satellites modi has never spoken to this at all now there there's also reference to criminal actions against certain individuals at m s i at k t in connection with all of this it's really not clear what those actions were for it's not clear whether they were contested it's not clear whether there was a plea bargain element there were fines directed against those individuals now if you look back and i know i'm bouncing a bit but if you look back to focus on your question op the requirement of hefty a approvals or license is the korean law which is not really very well developed in the sense that none of this was actually done domestically in korea calls for penalties not for there to be of contracts or anything like that financial penalties none of this was dealt with in korea now we wrote early in this in this dispute we wrote them and we said you have a right to seek a court review that right was not availed upon by katie we asked for to be read through the letter so i will not belabor it but this was an unusual circumstance ok these were highly politicized matters this was just when the sequence of events and some of them directly relate that resulted in then president park's impeachment conviction and she is now serving thirty years in prison a b s matter or key team matters are actually part of those impeachment charges this was highly politicized so to say there haven't been instances of m s i people orders being selected successfully challenged in the korean courts that may be true but what m s i doing is doing is fundamentally dealing with technical questions of frequency allocation the entity that is actually responsible for foreign trade right modi is really a stranger to all of this in never spoke to or addressed any of it so i really do not mean to  off the criticism in terms of how much is unclear to you about the satellite industry the business in its regulation in these papers i believe that to be the case i stand convicted in that respect these  not help you fully understand this subject matter in the way i think you would need to if you were deciding this case is an original matter but you're not that's why we had the arbitration proceedings that we had and i think what you should take comfort in is really two things fundamentally st is judge sco fell's very careful treatment of these subject matters and she finds that we easily meet the the standards that are of course very allow and i will take your time with my telling you about the standards that are applied in reviewing an arbitration award but i will say that the tribunals that we had in the arbitration was as distinguished to tribunals as you can have in matters of international commercial disputes and particularly with respect to the subject matters are designated arbitrator dan price was the seat was was a senior u s official with respect to trade matters in the nd bush administration an enormously accomplished in this area one of the most prominent arbitrators who sits in these sorts of cases that same sort of you know reputation applies with respect to each of the two other individuals there were multiple hearings in this case those hearings all involved the tribunals submission to the parties of requests prior to those hearings of the issues that were to be decided in brief in orally dealt with at those hearings precisely because this is a difficult subject matter and that is a process that operated in the way that it should ultimately you had a very a very meaningful substantial dissent thirty single spaced pages that focuses on one aspect of this you read the dissent and the majority opinion together there's an interplay on all of the questions this is not it's apparent on the face of it this is an award that was written and then there's the dissent there were multiple drafts exchanged you can see a discussion between the arbitrator's in this context even to invoke in this very general way this manifest disregard language it's sort of saying we're going to re argue the points of the arbitration and if we are so right that we appear to be manifestly right right then we somehow are entitle to back door that has nothing to do with what manifest disregard and back and tore means is a matter of new york law and i know that all of you understand that better than i do i won't submit to that but i will say that the sort of interplay that you see on this very distinguished tribunals should really give you comfort that even in the absence of the kind of detailed understanding that you would want to have as a trier of fact the process worked as the parties agreed in the arbitration clause and because the process worked this award should be confirmed the vaca two applications should be dismissed and we should finally reach a point where a b s receives the damages that have been holed up in all of judge leslie just returned your question about the regulatory structure just to be clear the international telecommunications union is the body that carved up the real estate matter space and allocates it to nation states nation states take their slots and regulate them as they see fit in the united states is the federal communications commission in korea as them aside the sale and transfer of satellites are subject to a separate regulatory regime which is carried out here in the united states through which is carried out in korea through the federal the foreign trade act the orders here this court case law the supreme court case law all of the relevant present makes clear that this court is not to read examine a valid action of a foreign government under the comedy so ultimately counsel are not administrate of the agencies those cases are judgments of foreign governments or foreign courts here you have an administrative agency decision after the fact two years after the fact you refused to challenge it in court so on all of those cases distinguishable no i don't think so your honor the government here acted through an executive agency the cases which did all the way back to the early hundreds involved all kinds of government actions from all kinds of questionable government governments are far more questionable than the republic of ministry of your agency and any foreign government it's not invalidating transactions and really taken placed with regard to title passing they can  do arbitration agreements our government does that through syphilis and other regulatory schemes if they're not apprised of a transaction our government would not hesitate to step in and then wind it and here it was the appropriate action because the government never had notice of the transaction so it's not unusual or remarkable that a regulator would have to step in after the fact and it does happen and we cite those some of those occasions and are brief but that doesn't undermine the validity of the order and importance of the matter that when they asked you to challenge this you refused to do so with that notion play into the calculus and all it doesn't it doesn't make the government action any less valid and importantly one thing i just want to emphasize is the tribe you know here relied on the government's orders there were two wars there was a partial war and then a final ward it held it didn't need to apply the war the order when it came to assigning title and then it actually quoted from and applied the order in order to hold katie sat in breach in a war damages and find that a b s undertook reasonable mitigation so it's not as if there were any finding as in the telling or case where the government action was invalid but in any other case where this quarter others have had