1019-00001 · Haber Reinhardt Schlosser Partners · Closing

enforcement-and-final-invoice-letter.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

2 / 35 ← → ✕

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Counselors at Law 600 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 556-4000 Facsimile: (212) 556-4001 www.calderwoodharkness.com

April 5, 2024

Dana Prescott, Esq. Vice President & General Counsel Whitmore Aerospace LLC 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1100 Arlington, Virginia 22203

Re: ICC Case No. 27914/MHM — *Whitmore Aerospace LLC v. Kestrel Dynamics GmbH*; Enforcement Considerations and Final Invoice

Engagement Number: 1019-00001

Dear Dana:

1. Introduction and Purpose of This Letter

We write with reference to the Partial Award issued on March 22, 2024 (the "Partial Award") by the Tribunal constituted in the above-captioned arbitration. The Tribunal — composed of Prof. Dame Eleanor Fitzwilliam (presiding), Dr. Hans-Ulrich Perren, and the Hon. Robert A. Castillo (ret.) — rendered a comprehensive decision that represents a decisive and favorable outcome for Whitmore Aerospace LLC ("WAL" or the "Company").

As you are aware, the Partial Award dismissed in their entirety the claims advanced by Kestrel Dynamics GmbH ("Kestrel"), which had asserted damages in the aggregate amount of €47.3 million arising from WAL's termination of the parties' Master Supply Agreement dated June 15, 2018 (the "MSA"). In addition, the Tribunal sustained WAL's counterclaim in part, awarding WAL the sum of €3.82 million in respect of replacement-component costs incurred by WAL following termination of the MSA. The Tribunal further ordered Kestrel to bear seventy-five percent (75%) of the total ICC arbitration costs — amounting to $930,000 of the $1.24 million in aggregate administrative costs and arbitrators' fees — and to reimburse WAL $1.85 million of its total claimed legal costs of $3.12 million.

The purpose of this letter is to address the following matters in an orderly fashion:

(a) enforcement considerations and recommended next steps should Kestrel fail to voluntarily comply with the Partial Award within a reasonable period;

(b) the Tribunal's reserved jurisdiction over the calculation and determination of post-award interest on the amounts awarded, which the Tribunal indicated would be addressed in a Final Award if necessary;

(c) certain insurance and lender notification obligations that we recommend WAL attend to in light of the favorable resolution; and

(d) the final invoice for Calderwood & Harkness LLP's ("C&H") representation of WAL in this engagement, a copy of which is enclosed herewith.

Subject to the matters addressed in this letter — and, in particular, subject to any enforcement proceedings that may become necessary if Kestrel does not voluntarily satisfy the amounts awarded — we consider the active representation in ICC Case No. 27914/MHM to be concluded as of the date hereof.

2. Summary of the Partial Award — Amounts Owed by Kestrel

For ease of reference and to facilitate your internal reporting, we set forth below a summary of the monetary obligations imposed on Kestrel under the Partial Award.

2.1 Counterclaim Award

The Tribunal awarded WAL €3,820,000 on its counterclaim for replacement-component costs. These costs were incurred by WAL in procuring titanium alloy turbine housings from Valkyr Precision Components Inc. ("Valkyr") following WAL's lawful termination of the MSA and Kestrel's consequent cessation of supply.

By way of background, WAL's counterclaim as originally pleaded sought €5.17 million, calculated as follows:

• Unit volume: 1,680 units of titanium alloy turbine housings required during the transition period;

• Per-unit premium: €3,210.00, representing the difference between the Valkyr unit price of €8,432.92 and the Kestrel Contract Year 4 ("CY4") price of €5,222.92 under Schedule 3 of the MSA;

• Gross replacement cost differential: 1,680 units × €3,210.00 = €5,392,800;

• Introductory discount adjustment: Valkyr extended a 4.2% introductory discount on its first twelve months of supply, reducing the gross replacement cost differential to €5,393,280 × 0.958 = €5,166,763, which was rounded in WAL's pleadings to approximately €5.17 million.

The Tribunal accepted the methodology underlying WAL's counterclaim calculation but applied a twenty-six percent (26%) reduction to the claimed amount in order to account for WAL's duty to mitigate damages by seeking competitive bids from alternative suppliers sooner than it did. The Tribunal found, based on the testimony of Dr. Ingrid Vollmer and the documentary record, that WAL could reasonably have initiated its competitive bidding process approximately six weeks earlier than it did, and that doing so would have reduced the per-unit premium. Applying the 26% reduction: €5.17 million × 0.74 = €3.826 million, which the Tribunal rounded to €3.82 million in its dispositif.

2.2 Arbitration Costs

The Tribunal fixed the total ICC administrative costs and arbitrators' fees at $1,240,000 and allocated them as follows:

The Partial Award further provides that any advances previously deposited by WAL with the ICC Secretariat in excess of WAL's twenty-five percent (25%) share shall be credited against the amounts owed by Kestrel. We understand from our review of the ICC's cost account statements that WAL deposited a total of $620,000 in cost advances during the course of the proceedings, which is $310,000 in excess of WAL's allocated share. This excess amount should be applied as a credit against Kestrel's obligation or refunded to WAL by the ICC, depending on the mechanics of the ICC's internal accounting procedures. We recommend that you follow up with the ICC Secretariat to confirm the precise allocation and any refund due.

2.3 Legal Cost Reimbursement

In its assessment of costs under Article 38(5) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2021 edition), the Tribunal ordered Kestrel to reimburse WAL $1,850,000 of WAL's total claimed legal costs of $3,122,000. This represents a recovery rate of approximately 59.3%. The Tribunal noted that while WAL was the substantially prevailing party and entitled to a significant contribution toward its legal costs, a full indemnity was not warranted in light of (a) the Tribunal's partial reduction of the counterclaim and (b) the volume of discovery-related motion practice attributable to both parties.

2.4 Aggregate Amounts Owed by Kestrel

The table below summarizes the aggregate monetary obligations imposed on Kestrel under the Partial Award:

The total obligation thus stands at approximately €3.82 million plus $2.78 million, subject to exchange-rate fluctuations as of the date of payment and any adjustments arising from the ICC's internal cost accounting. We note that the Partial Award does not require conversion of the euro-denominated counterclaim award into U.S. dollars, and accordingly, Kestrel's payment of the counterclaim amount should be made in euros unless the parties agree otherwise.

3. Enforcement Under the New York Convention

3.1 Voluntary Compliance Period

As an initial matter, we recommend allowing Kestrel a reasonable period following issuance of the Partial Award to comply voluntarily before initiating any enforcement proceedings. In our experience, a period of thirty (30) to sixty (60) days from the date of issuance is customary and appropriate, and courts and tribunals generally view such a period as evidence of the award creditor's good faith and reasonableness.

We note for context that the Partial Award was rendered at the seat of arbitration in New York, New York, under the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2021 edition), with the Tribunal applying New York governing law as specified in Section 22.1 of the MSA. The proceedings were conducted in English, the procedural orders were duly issued and complied with, and the Tribunal was properly constituted in accordance with the ICC Rules. These facts are material to the enforceability analysis set forth below.

To date, we have not received any communication from Kestrel or its counsel at Haber Reinhardt Schlosser Partnerschaft mbB indicating an intention either to comply with or to challenge the Partial Award. We will, of course, monitor the situation closely and advise you promptly of any developments.

3.2 Enforcement in the United States

Should Kestrel fail to voluntarily satisfy the amounts awarded within the compliance period, the primary framework for enforcement is provided by the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done at New York on June 10, 1958 (the "New York Convention"). Both the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany are signatories to the New York Convention, which creates a presumption in favor of recognition and enforcement of qualifying arbitral awards.

In the United States, the New York Convention is implemented by Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201–208. Under Section 207 of the FAA, a 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." This statutory language establishes a mandatory confirmation framework, subject only to the narrow and exhaustive defenses set forth in Article V of the New York Convention.

Because the seat of arbitration is New York, an application to confirm the Partial Award could be filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 204, which confers original jurisdiction on federal district courts over actions falling under the New York Convention. Alternatively, if Kestrel maintains assets or operations in other judicial districts within the United States, WAL could consider filing in those districts, although we believe the Southern District of New York is the most natural and efficient forum.

The grounds for refusal of recognition under Article V of the New York Convention are narrow, exhaustive, and construed restrictively by U.S. courts. They include, among others: (1) incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement; (2) lack of proper notice or inability to present one's case; (3) the award deals with matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration; (4) improper composition of the tribunal or deviation from agreed-upon procedure; and (5) the award has been set aside or suspended in the country of origin. Given the procedural regularity of the proceedings, the proper constitution of the Tribunal under the ICC Rules, and the absence of any identified procedural deficiencies, we assess the risk of a successful challenge to recognition and enforcement as low. Neither party raised any procedural objections during the course of the arbitration that would provide a basis for a post-award challenge, and the Tribunal's reasoning in the Partial Award is thorough and well-supported by the evidentiary record.

We further note that under 9 U.S.C. § 207, an action to confirm a New York Convention award must be brought within three years after the award is made. Accordingly, the outer deadline for filing a confirmation petition in the United States would be March 22, 2027, although we strongly recommend proceeding well before that date if voluntary compliance is not forthcoming.

3.3 Enforcement in Germany

If Kestrel's assets are primarily located in Germany — which, based on our understanding of Kestrel's corporate structure and operations, appears likely — WAL may need to seek recognition and enforcement of the Partial Award in Germany in addition to, or in lieu of, enforcement in the United States.

Germany is a signatory to the New York Convention, which is implemented domestically through Sections 1061 through 1065 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, or "ZPO"). Under § 1061(1) ZPO, recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is granted in accordance with the New York Convention. The competent court for enforcement proceedings is the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) with jurisdiction over the respondent's registered office or, in the absence of a registered office, the court with jurisdiction over the respondent's assets.

Kestrel's registered office is located at Industriestraße 88, 70565 Stuttgart, Germany. Kestrel is registered in the German Commercial Register (Handelsregister) under registration number HRB 745621 at the Amtsgericht Stuttgart. Based on this registered office, the competent court for enforcement proceedings would be the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart.

German courts have a well-established and strong track record of recognizing and enforcing New York Convention awards. The grounds for refusal of recognition mirror those set forth in Article V of the Convention, and German courts have consistently interpreted these grounds narrowly, in keeping with the pro-enforcement bias of the Convention. We are not aware of any public-policy or other ground that would present a colorable basis for Kestrel to resist enforcement in Germany.

We note that Kestrel's principal manufacturing and engineering operations are concentrated in the Stuttgart metropolitan area, and we understand from the evidentiary record developed during the arbitration that Kestrel maintains substantial fixed assets, including its production facility on Industriestraße, as well as significant trade receivables, commercial bank accounts, and other assets in Germany. These assets would be available for execution following recognition and enforcement of the Partial Award by the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart.

3.4 Recommended Next Steps on Enforcement

In light of the foregoing, we recommend the following course of action:

1. Monitor voluntary compliance. Allow Kestrel until May 22, 2024 — being sixty (60) days from the date of the Partial Award — to voluntarily satisfy the amounts awarded. This period provides Kestrel with a reasonable opportunity to arrange payment while preserving WAL's enforcement rights.

2. Demand letter. If Kestrel does not initiate communication regarding payment within the first thirty (30) days (i.e., by April 22, 2024), we recommend transmitting a formal demand letter to Kestrel's counsel, Haber Reinhardt Schlosser Partnerschaft mbB, at their offices at Königstraße 35, 70173 Stuttgart, Germany (with a courtesy copy to their London office at 30 St Mary Axe, London EC3A 8BF, United Kingdom), setting forth the amounts owed and the deadline for compliance. This letter would also serve to reserve WAL's rights with respect to post-award interest, as discussed in Section 4 below.

3. Enforcement proceedings. If no voluntary payment is received by May 22, 2024, we recommend that WAL instruct C&H to prepare and file a petition for confirmation of the Partial Award in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, concurrently, to coordinate with qualified local German counsel for parallel enforcement proceedings before the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart. Pursuing enforcement in both jurisdictions simultaneously maximizes the likelihood of prompt recovery and reduces the risk that Kestrel will dissipate or relocate assets during the pendency of enforcement proceedings.

4. German counsel. Should WAL wish to pursue enforcement in Germany, we can recommend qualified German counsel with experience in the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards. We are prepared to coordinate the engagement of German counsel on WAL's behalf and to supervise the parallel proceedings to ensure consistency of strategy across jurisdictions. For any settlement or voluntary compliance discussions, the appropriate point of contact on Kestrel's side would be Haber Reinhardt Schlosser Partnerschaft mbB, whose attorneys represented Kestrel throughout the ICC arbitration.

We are, of course, available to discuss these recommendations at your convenience and to adjust the timeline based on any developments or communications from Kestrel's side.

4. Tribunal's Reserved Jurisdiction — Post-Award Interest

The Partial Award expressly reserved the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the calculation and determination of post-award interest on the amounts awarded to WAL. Specifically, at paragraphs 312 through 315 of the Partial Award, the Tribunal stated that the question of post-award interest would be addressed, if necessary, in a Final Award to be rendered upon application by either party.

This reservation is significant. If Kestrel does not satisfy the amounts awarded promptly, WAL may apply to the Tribunal for a supplemental or final award quantifying post-award interest running from the date of the Partial Award (March 22, 2024) until the date of full payment. Such an application would be made under Article 36(2) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2021 edition), which permits the Tribunal to issue additional awards on matters reserved in a partial award.

Under New York law — which is the governing law of the MSA and which the Tribunal applied throughout the proceedings — the statutory rate for prejudgment and post-judgment interest is nine percent (9%) per annum, as prescribed by Section 5004 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"). While this statutory rate would provide a reasonable benchmark, the Tribunal retains discretion to apply a different rate consistent with the terms of the MSA, the nature of the underlying obligations, and applicable principles of international commercial arbitration. We note that Section 22.4 of the MSA provides for interest on overdue amounts at the rate of SOFR plus 350 basis points, calculated on a 360-day basis, which could provide an alternative framework if the Tribunal elects not to apply the CPLR statutory rate.

We recommend the following actions with respect to post-award interest:

(a) Reservation of rights. Include in any demand letter transmitted to Kestrel's counsel (as discussed in Section 3.4 above) an express reservation of WAL's right to seek post-award interest in the event of non-payment, together with a statement that interest is accruing from March 22, 2024 on all amounts awarded.

(b) Application to the Tribunal. If Kestrel has not satisfied the Partial Award in full by the expiration of the voluntary compliance period, we recommend filing an application with the Tribunal for a Final Award on post-award interest. The application should address the applicable rate, the method of calculation, and the compounding period.

(c) Timing. No further proceedings have been initiated before the Tribunal as of the date of this letter. We recommend revisiting this issue once the voluntary compliance period of sixty (60) days has lapsed and, if enforcement proceedings are initiated, coordinating the interest application with the broader enforcement strategy.

5. Insurance and Lender Notifications

We wish to draw your attention to two notification matters that WAL should address in light of the favorable resolution of the arbitration.

Insurance. As you will recall, Pinnacle Continental Insurance Co. ("Pinnacle") was notified of the arbitration at its inception. Pinnacle issued a coverage reservation letter dated January 18, 2023, in which it acknowledged receipt of WAL's notice but declined to provide a defense or indemnity under WAL's commercial general liability policy (Policy No. PCE-GL-2021-08854), citing the commercial-supply exclusion in Section IV(b)(3) of the policy. While we did not challenge Pinnacle's coverage position during the course of the arbitration — and while that position may have been well-founded given the nature of the underlying claims — it is prudent to close the notification loop by providing Pinnacle with a copy of the Partial Award or a summary of the outcome, confirming that Kestrel's claims have been dismissed in their entirety and that WAL has obtained an affirmative recovery. This will ensure that Pinnacle's file reflects the favorable resolution and avoid any ambiguity in future underwriting or claims-history inquiries.

Lender. WAL may also wish to notify Veltrano National Bank, N.A. under WAL's $350 million senior secured revolving credit facility that the €47.3 million exposure arising from Kestrel's claims has been eliminated. Depending on the terms of the credit agreement, particularly any material-litigation reporting covenants or disclosure obligations in the borrowing-base certificate, this notification may be required or, at a minimum, advisable. The elimination of a contingent liability of this magnitude may also be relevant for covenant compliance calculations, and we recommend that WAL's treasury and finance teams review the credit agreement to determine whether any affirmative notification or updated disclosure is required. This is a matter outside the scope of our arbitration engagement, and we defer to your judgment and that of WAL's banking counsel on the appropriate form and timing of any notification.

6. Final Invoice — Engagement Economics

6.1 Fee Summary

The total professional fees billed by C&H for representation of WAL in ICC Case No. 27914/MHM, covering the period from the commencement of the engagement in November 2022 through the conclusion of the matter in April 2024, are as follows:

Total Professional Fees: $2,487,300

The following billing rates were applied throughout the engagement, consistent with the rate schedule set forth in Exhibit A to the engagement letter dated November 2, 2022:

The total professional fees reflect the full scope of work performed, including pre-arbitration analysis and case assessment; preparation and filing of the Answer, Counterclaim, and all responsive pleadings; document collection, review, and production; witness preparation and the taking of witness statements; expert engagement and coordination; preparation of pre-hearing submissions and post-hearing briefs; and participation in the five-day evidentiary hearing conducted at the ICC Hearing Centre in New York from October 16 through October 20, 2023. We believe that the staffing model and billing rates applied throughout the engagement were appropriate to the complexity and significance of the matter.

6.2 Costs and Disbursements

In addition to professional fees, the engagement generated the following costs and disbursements:

Total Costs and Disbursements: $634,700

The principal categories of costs and disbursements incurred during the engagement are summarized below:

• Expert witness fees: Fees and expenses of Dr. Nadia Ostrovsky of Ridgeline Economic Consulting LLC (damages and mitigation analysis) and Dr. Raymond Chow of Arclight Materials Science Inc. (materials science and component specification testimony), including report preparation, deposition attendance, and hearing testimony.

• Forensic accounting review: Fees of Canfield & Thorpe LLP (Sandra Gillespie, CPA/ABV), engaged to perform a forensic review of Kestrel's damages methodology and to prepare a rebuttal report addressing the deficiencies in Kestrel's lost-profits analysis.

• ICC advance on costs: WAL's share of the advance on costs deposited with the ICC Secretariat in accordance with the ICC's cost-management procedures.

• Hearing-related travel and accommodation: Travel, lodging, and related expenses for the C&H team, WAL fact witnesses, and expert witnesses in connection with the evidentiary hearing in New York.

• Transcript and court-reporting costs: Fees for real-time court reporting and preparation of certified hearing transcripts by the reporting service engaged by the Tribunal.

• Document production and hosting expenses: Costs associated with the collection, processing, review, and production of electronically stored information, including hosting fees for the document-review platform utilized during the proceedings.

6.3 Total Engagement Value

The total value of the engagement, combining professional fees and costs/disbursements, is as follows:

This figure of $3,122,000 corresponds precisely to the total legal costs submitted by WAL to the Tribunal and referenced in the Partial Award at paragraphs 298 through 304. As noted in Section 2.3 above, the Tribunal ordered Kestrel to reimburse WAL $1,850,000 of this total, representing a recovery rate of approximately 59.3%.

Accordingly, WAL's net out-of-pocket legal cost after receipt of the ordered reimbursement will be:

$3,122,000 − $1,850,000 = $1,272,000

This net cost is, of course, contingent on Kestrel's actual payment of the legal cost reimbursement ordered by the Tribunal, whether voluntarily or through enforcement proceedings.

6.4 Net Financial Outcome for WAL

For the benefit of your internal reporting and for communication to WAL's board and senior leadership, we summarize below the overall financial outcome of the arbitration for WAL:

The net value preserved and recovered — calculated as the sum of the avoided exposure (€47.3 million), the counterclaim recovery (€3.82 million), and the legal cost reimbursement ($1.85 million, converted at applicable rates) — represents a highly favorable outcome relative to the worst-case scenario in which Kestrel's claims would have been sustained in full and WAL's counterclaim dismissed. We are gratified to have played a role in achieving this result.

6.5 Enclosed Invoice

The final invoice for this engagement, bearing Invoice No. SC-27914-FINAL, is enclosed with this letter. The invoice reflects the remaining balance of professional fees and costs/disbursements accrued during the final phase of the engagement (February 2024 through April 2024), including fees for post-hearing work, review and analysis of the Partial Award, and the preparation of this closing letter.

We note that all prior invoices issued during the course of the engagement have been paid in full as of the date of this letter, and we are grateful for WAL's consistent and prompt attention to our billing. Payment of the enclosed final invoice is due within thirty (30) days of the date hereof, in accordance with the payment terms set forth in Section 7 of the engagement letter dated November 2, 2022. Please direct any questions regarding the invoice to Vivienne St. Claire or to our billing department at billing@calderwoodharkness.com.

7. Matter Closure

With the issuance of this letter and the enclosed final invoice, Calderwood & Harkness LLP considers the active engagement in ICC Case No. 27914/MHM to be closed. The engagement number 1019-00001 will remain on file in our matter-management system for reference purposes.

C&H will retain all engagement files — including pleadings, correspondence, work product, expert reports, hearing transcripts, and related materials — in accordance with the firm's document-retention policies as set forth in Section 12 of the engagement letter dated November 2, 2022. Under those policies, engagement files will be retained for a period of seven (7) years following closure of the matter, after which they will be securely destroyed unless you instruct us otherwise in writing.

We wish to emphasize that should enforcement proceedings become necessary — whether in the United States, Germany, or any other jurisdiction — a new engagement letter or formal scope amendment to the existing engagement letter will be required before C&H undertakes any additional work. We are prepared to discuss the terms and scope of any such engagement at your convenience and to mobilize promptly if circumstances require.

Finally, we wish to express our sincere appreciation for the opportunity to represent Whitmore Aerospace LLC and its Chief Executive Officer, Marcus J. Whitmore III, in this significant and complex international arbitration. The outcome achieved is a testament not only to the strength of WAL's legal and factual position but also to the exceptional cooperation and support we received from your team throughout the proceedings. We are particularly grateful to you, Dana, as well as to Gerald Huang (Vice President, Global Supply Chain Operations) and Dr. Ingrid Vollmer (Senior Vice President, Engineering & Manufacturing), whose responsiveness, technical expertise, and candor as fact witnesses were instrumental in the favorable result. It has been a privilege to serve as WAL's counsel in this matter, and we look forward to the opportunity to work with you and the WAL team again in the future.

Please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (212) 556-4112 or at tlangston@calderwoodharkness.com should you wish to discuss any aspect of this letter or the recommended next steps.

Very truly yours,

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Theodore Langston Partner

600 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Direct: (212) 556-4112

Email: tlangston@calderwoodharkness.com

Enclosure: Final Invoice (Invoice No. SC-27914-FINAL)

cc: Marcus J. Whitmore III, Chief Executive Officer, Whitmore Aerospace LLC cc: Vivienne St. Claire, Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP cc: Simone Laroche, Senior Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP cc: Jeffrey Park, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

Cost Component	Kestrel (75%)	WAL (25%)
ICC Administrative Costs & Arbitrators' Fees	$930,000	$310,000
Category	Currency	Amount
Counterclaim Award	EUR	€3,820,000
Kestrel's Share of ICC Costs (75%)	USD	$930,000
Legal Cost Reimbursement	USD	$1,850,000
Subtotal (USD component)	USD	$2,780,000
Timekeeper	Role	Billing Rate
Theodore Langston	Partner, Responsible Partner	$1,475/hr
Vivienne St. Claire	Partner, Billing Partner	$1,425/hr
Simone Laroche	Senior Associate, Lead Associate	$895/hr
Jeffrey Park	Associate, Working Associate	$625/hr
Component	Amount
Professional Fees	$2,487,300
Costs and Disbursements	$634,700
Total Engagement Value	$3,122,000
Metric	Amount
Counterclaim Recovery	€3,820,000
Legal Cost Reimbursement	$1,850,000
Exposure Avoided (Kestrel's Claimed Damages, Dismissed)	€47,300,000
Approximate Net Value Preserved/Recovered vs. Worst-Case Scenario	~€51,120,000

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Counselors at Law 600 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 556-4000 Facsimile: (212) 556-4001 www.calderwoodharkness.com
April 5, 2024
Dana Prescott, Esq. Vice President & General Counsel Whitmore Aerospace LLC 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1100 Arlington, Virginia 22203
Re: ICC Case No. 27914/MHM — *Whitmore Aerospace LLC v. Kestrel Dynamics GmbH*; Enforcement Considerations and Final Invoice
Engagement Number: 1019-00001
Dear Dana:
1. Introduction and Purpose of This Letter
We write with reference to the Partial Award issued on March 22, 2024 (the "Partial Award") by the Tribunal constituted in the above-captioned arbitration. The Tribunal — composed of Prof. Dame Eleanor Fitzwilliam (presiding), Dr. Hans-Ulrich Perren, and the Hon. Robert A. Castillo (ret.) — rendered a comprehensive decision that represents a decisive and favorable outcome for Whitmore Aerospace LLC ("WAL" or the "Company").
As you are aware, the Partial Award dismissed in their entirety the claims advanced by Kestrel Dynamics GmbH ("Kestrel"), which had asserted damages in the aggregate amount of €47.3 million arising from WAL's termination of the parties' Master Supply Agreement dated June 15, 2018 (the "MSA"). In addition, the Tribunal sustained WAL's counterclaim in part, awarding WAL the sum of €3.82 million in respect of replacement-component costs incurred by WAL following termination of the MSA. The Tribunal further ordered Kestrel to bear seventy-five percent (75%) of the total ICC arbitration costs — amounting to $930,000 of the $1.24 million in aggregate administrative costs and arbitrators' fees — and to reimburse WAL $1.85 million of its total claimed legal costs of $3.12 million.
The purpose of this letter is to address the following matters in an orderly fashion:
(a) enforcement considerations and recommended next steps should Kestrel fail to voluntarily comply with the Partial Award within a reasonable period;
(b) the Tribunal's reserved jurisdiction over the calculation and determination of post-award interest on the amounts awarded, which the Tribunal indicated would be addressed in a Final Award if necessary;
(c) certain insurance and lender notification obligations that we recommend WAL attend to in light of the favorable resolution; and
(d) the final invoice for Calderwood & Harkness LLP's ("C&H") representation of WAL in this engagement, a copy of which is enclosed herewith.
Subject to the matters addressed in this letter — and, in particular, subject to any enforcement proceedings that may become necessary if Kestrel does not voluntarily satisfy the amounts awarded — we consider the active representation in ICC Case No. 27914/MHM to be concluded as of the date hereof.
2. Summary of the Partial Award — Amounts Owed by Kestrel
For ease of reference and to facilitate your internal reporting, we set forth below a summary of the monetary obligations imposed on Kestrel under the Partial Award.
2.1 Counterclaim Award
The Tribunal awarded WAL €3,820,000 on its counterclaim for replacement-component costs. These costs were incurred by WAL in procuring titanium alloy turbine housings from Valkyr Precision Components Inc. ("Valkyr") following WAL's lawful termination of the MSA and Kestrel's consequent cessation of supply.
By way of background, WAL's counterclaim as originally pleaded sought €5.17 million, calculated as follows:
• Unit volume: 1,680 units of titanium alloy turbine housings required during the transition period;
• Per-unit premium: €3,210.00, representing the difference between the Valkyr unit price of €8,432.92 and the Kestrel Contract Year 4 ("CY4") price of €5,222.92 under Schedule 3 of the MSA;
• Gross replacement cost differential: 1,680 units × €3,210.00 = €5,392,800;
• Introductory discount adjustment: Valkyr extended a 4.2% introductory discount on its first twelve months of supply, reducing the gross replacement cost differential to €5,393,280 × 0.958 = €5,166,763, which was rounded in WAL's pleadings to approximately €5.17 million.
The Tribunal accepted the methodology underlying WAL's counterclaim calculation but applied a twenty-six percent (26%) reduction to the claimed amount in order to account for WAL's duty to mitigate damages by seeking competitive bids from alternative suppliers sooner than it did. The Tribunal found, based on the testimony of Dr. Ingrid Vollmer and the documentary record, that WAL could reasonably have initiated its competitive bidding process approximately six weeks earlier than it did, and that doing so would have reduced the per-unit premium. Applying the 26% reduction: €5.17 million × 0.74 = €3.826 million, which the Tribunal rounded to €3.82 million in its dispositif.
2.2 Arbitration Costs
The Tribunal fixed the total ICC administrative costs and arbitrators' fees at $1,240,000 and allocated them as follows:
The Partial Award further provides that any advances previously deposited by WAL with the ICC Secretariat in excess of WAL's twenty-five percent (25%) share shall be credited against the amounts owed by Kestrel. We understand from our review of the ICC's cost account statements that WAL deposited a total of $620,000 in cost advances during the course of the proceedings, which is $310,000 in excess of WAL's allocated share. This excess amount should be applied as a credit against Kestrel's obligation or refunded to WAL by the ICC, depending on the mechanics of the ICC's internal accounting procedures. We recommend that you follow up with the ICC Secretariat to confirm the precise allocation and any refund due.
2.3 Legal Cost Reimbursement
In its assessment of costs under Article 38(5) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2021 edition), the Tribunal ordered Kestrel to reimburse WAL $1,850,000 of WAL's total claimed legal costs of $3,122,000. This represents a recovery rate of approximately 59.3%. The Tribunal noted that while WAL was the substantially prevailing party and entitled to a significant contribution toward its legal costs, a full indemnity was not warranted in light of (a) the Tribunal's partial reduction of the counterclaim and (b) the volume of discovery-related motion practice attributable to both parties.
2.4 Aggregate Amounts Owed by Kestrel
The table below summarizes the aggregate monetary obligations imposed on Kestrel under the Partial Award:
The total obligation thus stands at approximately €3.82 million plus $2.78 million, subject to exchange-rate fluctuations as of the date of payment and any adjustments arising from the ICC's internal cost accounting. We note that the Partial Award does not require conversion of the euro-denominated counterclaim award into U.S. dollars, and accordingly, Kestrel's payment of the counterclaim amount should be made in euros unless the parties agree otherwise.
3. Enforcement Under the New York Convention
3.1 Voluntary Compliance Period
As an initial matter, we recommend allowing Kestrel a reasonable period following issuance of the Partial Award to comply voluntarily before initiating any enforcement proceedings. In our experience, a period of thirty (30) to sixty (60) days from the date of issuance is customary and appropriate, and courts and tribunals generally view such a period as evidence of the award creditor's good faith and reasonableness.
We note for context that the Partial Award was rendered at the seat of arbitration in New York, New York, under the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2021 edition), with the Tribunal applying New York governing law as specified in Section 22.1 of the MSA. The proceedings were conducted in English, the procedural orders were duly issued and complied with, and the Tribunal was properly constituted in accordance with the ICC Rules. These facts are material to the enforceability analysis set forth below.
To date, we have not received any communication from Kestrel or its counsel at Haber Reinhardt Schlosser Partnerschaft mbB indicating an intention either to comply with or to challenge the Partial Award. We will, of course, monitor the situation closely and advise you promptly of any developments.
3.2 Enforcement in the United States
Should Kestrel fail to voluntarily satisfy the amounts awarded within the compliance period, the primary framework for enforcement is provided by the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done at New York on June 10, 1958 (the "New York Convention"). Both the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany are signatories to the New York Convention, which creates a presumption in favor of recognition and enforcement of qualifying arbitral awards.
In the United States, the New York Convention is implemented by Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201–208. Under Section 207 of the FAA, a 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." This statutory language establishes a mandatory confirmation framework, subject only to the narrow and exhaustive defenses set forth in Article V of the New York Convention.
Because the seat of arbitration is New York, an application to confirm the Partial Award could be filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 204, which confers original jurisdiction on federal district courts over actions falling under the New York Convention. Alternatively, if Kestrel maintains assets or operations in other judicial districts within the United States, WAL could consider filing in those districts, although we believe the Southern District of New York is the most natural and efficient forum.
The grounds for refusal of recognition under Article V of the New York Convention are narrow, exhaustive, and construed restrictively by U.S. courts. They include, among others: (1) incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement; (2) lack of proper notice or inability to present one's case; (3) the award deals with matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration; (4) improper composition of the tribunal or deviation from agreed-upon procedure; and (5) the award has been set aside or suspended in the country of origin. Given the procedural regularity of the proceedings, the proper constitution of the Tribunal under the ICC Rules, and the absence of any identified procedural deficiencies, we assess the risk of a successful challenge to recognition and enforcement as low. Neither party raised any procedural objections during the course of the arbitration that would provide a basis for a post-award challenge, and the Tribunal's reasoning in the Partial Award is thorough and well-supported by the evidentiary record.
We further note that under 9 U.S.C. § 207, an action to confirm a New York Convention award must be brought within three years after the award is made. Accordingly, the outer deadline for filing a confirmation petition in the United States would be March 22, 2027, although we strongly recommend proceeding well before that date if voluntary compliance is not forthcoming.
3.3 Enforcement in Germany
If Kestrel's assets are primarily located in Germany — which, based on our understanding of Kestrel's corporate structure and operations, appears likely — WAL may need to seek recognition and enforcement of the Partial Award in Germany in addition to, or in lieu of, enforcement in the United States.
Germany is a signatory to the New York Convention, which is implemented domestically through Sections 1061 through 1065 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, or "ZPO"). Under § 1061(1) ZPO, recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is granted in accordance with the New York Convention. The competent court for enforcement proceedings is the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) with jurisdiction over the respondent's registered office or, in the absence of a registered office, the court with jurisdiction over the respondent's assets.
Kestrel's registered office is located at Industriestraße 88, 70565 Stuttgart, Germany. Kestrel is registered in the German Commercial Register (Handelsregister) under registration number HRB 745621 at the Amtsgericht Stuttgart. Based on this registered office, the competent court for enforcement proceedings would be the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart.
German courts have a well-established and strong track record of recognizing and enforcing New York Convention awards. The grounds for refusal of recognition mirror those set forth in Article V of the Convention, and German courts have consistently interpreted these grounds narrowly, in keeping with the pro-enforcement bias of the Convention. We are not aware of any public-policy or other ground that would present a colorable basis for Kestrel to resist enforcement in Germany.
We note that Kestrel's principal manufacturing and engineering operations are concentrated in the Stuttgart metropolitan area, and we understand from the evidentiary record developed during the arbitration that Kestrel maintains substantial fixed assets, including its production facility on Industriestraße, as well as significant trade receivables, commercial bank accounts, and other assets in Germany. These assets would be available for execution following recognition and enforcement of the Partial Award by the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart.
3.4 Recommended Next Steps on Enforcement
In light of the foregoing, we recommend the following course of action:
1. Monitor voluntary compliance. Allow Kestrel until May 22, 2024 — being sixty (60) days from the date of the Partial Award — to voluntarily satisfy the amounts awarded. This period provides Kestrel with a reasonable opportunity to arrange payment while preserving WAL's enforcement rights.
2. Demand letter. If Kestrel does not initiate communication regarding payment within the first thirty (30) days (i.e., by April 22, 2024), we recommend transmitting a formal demand letter to Kestrel's counsel, Haber Reinhardt Schlosser Partnerschaft mbB, at their offices at Königstraße 35, 70173 Stuttgart, Germany (with a courtesy copy to their London office at 30 St Mary Axe, London EC3A 8BF, United Kingdom), setting forth the amounts owed and the deadline for compliance. This letter would also serve to reserve WAL's rights with respect to post-award interest, as discussed in Section 4 below.
3. Enforcement proceedings. If no voluntary payment is received by May 22, 2024, we recommend that WAL instruct C&H to prepare and file a petition for confirmation of the Partial Award in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, concurrently, to coordinate with qualified local German counsel for parallel enforcement proceedings before the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart. Pursuing enforcement in both jurisdictions simultaneously maximizes the likelihood of prompt recovery and reduces the risk that Kestrel will dissipate or relocate assets during the pendency of enforcement proceedings.
4. German counsel. Should WAL wish to pursue enforcement in Germany, we can recommend qualified German counsel with experience in the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards. We are prepared to coordinate the engagement of German counsel on WAL's behalf and to supervise the parallel proceedings to ensure consistency of strategy across jurisdictions. For any settlement or voluntary compliance discussions, the appropriate point of contact on Kestrel's side would be Haber Reinhardt Schlosser Partnerschaft mbB, whose attorneys represented Kestrel throughout the ICC arbitration.
We are, of course, available to discuss these recommendations at your convenience and to adjust the timeline based on any developments or communications from Kestrel's side.
4. Tribunal's Reserved Jurisdiction — Post-Award Interest
The Partial Award expressly reserved the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the calculation and determination of post-award interest on the amounts awarded to WAL. Specifically, at paragraphs 312 through 315 of the Partial Award, the Tribunal stated that the question of post-award interest would be addressed, if necessary, in a Final Award to be rendered upon application by either party.
This reservation is significant. If Kestrel does not satisfy the amounts awarded promptly, WAL may apply to the Tribunal for a supplemental or final award quantifying post-award interest running from the date of the Partial Award (March 22, 2024) until the date of full payment. Such an application would be made under Article 36(2) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2021 edition), which permits the Tribunal to issue additional awards on matters reserved in a partial award.
Under New York law — which is the governing law of the MSA and which the Tribunal applied throughout the proceedings — the statutory rate for prejudgment and post-judgment interest is nine percent (9%) per annum, as prescribed by Section 5004 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"). While this statutory rate would provide a reasonable benchmark, the Tribunal retains discretion to apply a different rate consistent with the terms of the MSA, the nature of the underlying obligations, and applicable principles of international commercial arbitration. We note that Section 22.4 of the MSA provides for interest on overdue amounts at the rate of SOFR plus 350 basis points, calculated on a 360-day basis, which could provide an alternative framework if the Tribunal elects not to apply the CPLR statutory rate.
We recommend the following actions with respect to post-award interest:
(a) Reservation of rights. Include in any demand letter transmitted to Kestrel's counsel (as discussed in Section 3.4 above) an express reservation of WAL's right to seek post-award interest in the event of non-payment, together with a statement that interest is accruing from March 22, 2024 on all amounts awarded.
(b) Application to the Tribunal. If Kestrel has not satisfied the Partial Award in full by the expiration of the voluntary compliance period, we recommend filing an application with the Tribunal for a Final Award on post-award interest. The application should address the applicable rate, the method of calculation, and the compounding period.
(c) Timing. No further proceedings have been initiated before the Tribunal as of the date of this letter. We recommend revisiting this issue once the voluntary compliance period of sixty (60) days has lapsed and, if enforcement proceedings are initiated, coordinating the interest application with the broader enforcement strategy.
5. Insurance and Lender Notifications
We wish to draw your attention to two notification matters that WAL should address in light of the favorable resolution of the arbitration.
Insurance. As you will recall, Pinnacle Continental Insurance Co. ("Pinnacle") was notified of the arbitration at its inception. Pinnacle issued a coverage reservation letter dated January 18, 2023, in which it acknowledged receipt of WAL's notice but declined to provide a defense or indemnity under WAL's commercial general liability policy (Policy No. PCE-GL-2021-08854), citing the commercial-supply exclusion in Section IV(b)(3) of the policy. While we did not challenge Pinnacle's coverage position during the course of the arbitration — and while that position may have been well-founded given the nature of the underlying claims — it is prudent to close the notification loop by providing Pinnacle with a copy of the Partial Award or a summary of the outcome, confirming that Kestrel's claims have been dismissed in their entirety and that WAL has obtained an affirmative recovery. This will ensure that Pinnacle's file reflects the favorable resolution and avoid any ambiguity in future underwriting or claims-history inquiries.
Lender. WAL may also wish to notify Veltrano National Bank, N.A. under WAL's $350 million senior secured revolving credit facility that the €47.3 million exposure arising from Kestrel's claims has been eliminated. Depending on the terms of the credit agreement, particularly any material-litigation reporting covenants or disclosure obligations in the borrowing-base certificate, this notification may be required or, at a minimum, advisable. The elimination of a contingent liability of this magnitude may also be relevant for covenant compliance calculations, and we recommend that WAL's treasury and finance teams review the credit agreement to determine whether any affirmative notification or updated disclosure is required. This is a matter outside the scope of our arbitration engagement, and we defer to your judgment and that of WAL's banking counsel on the appropriate form and timing of any notification.
6. Final Invoice — Engagement Economics
6.1 Fee Summary
The total professional fees billed by C&H for representation of WAL in ICC Case No. 27914/MHM, covering the period from the commencement of the engagement in November 2022 through the conclusion of the matter in April 2024, are as follows:
Total Professional Fees: $2,487,300
The following billing rates were applied throughout the engagement, consistent with the rate schedule set forth in Exhibit A to the engagement letter dated November 2, 2022:
The total professional fees reflect the full scope of work performed, including pre-arbitration analysis and case assessment; preparation and filing of the Answer, Counterclaim, and all responsive pleadings; document collection, review, and production; witness preparation and the taking of witness statements; expert engagement and coordination; preparation of pre-hearing submissions and post-hearing briefs; and participation in the five-day evidentiary hearing conducted at the ICC Hearing Centre in New York from October 16 through October 20, 2023. We believe that the staffing model and billing rates applied throughout the engagement were appropriate to the complexity and significance of the matter.
6.2 Costs and Disbursements
In addition to professional fees, the engagement generated the following costs and disbursements:
Total Costs and Disbursements: $634,700
The principal categories of costs and disbursements incurred during the engagement are summarized below:
• Expert witness fees: Fees and expenses of Dr. Nadia Ostrovsky of Ridgeline Economic Consulting LLC (damages and mitigation analysis) and Dr. Raymond Chow of Arclight Materials Science Inc. (materials science and component specification testimony), including report preparation, deposition attendance, and hearing testimony.
• Forensic accounting review: Fees of Canfield & Thorpe LLP (Sandra Gillespie, CPA/ABV), engaged to perform a forensic review of Kestrel's damages methodology and to prepare a rebuttal report addressing the deficiencies in Kestrel's lost-profits analysis.
• ICC advance on costs: WAL's share of the advance on costs deposited with the ICC Secretariat in accordance with the ICC's cost-management procedures.
• Hearing-related travel and accommodation: Travel, lodging, and related expenses for the C&H team, WAL fact witnesses, and expert witnesses in connection with the evidentiary hearing in New York.
• Transcript and court-reporting costs: Fees for real-time court reporting and preparation of certified hearing transcripts by the reporting service engaged by the Tribunal.
• Document production and hosting expenses: Costs associated with the collection, processing, review, and production of electronically stored information, including hosting fees for the document-review platform utilized during the proceedings.
6.3 Total Engagement Value
The total value of the engagement, combining professional fees and costs/disbursements, is as follows:
This figure of $3,122,000 corresponds precisely to the total legal costs submitted by WAL to the Tribunal and referenced in the Partial Award at paragraphs 298 through 304. As noted in Section 2.3 above, the Tribunal ordered Kestrel to reimburse WAL $1,850,000 of this total, representing a recovery rate of approximately 59.3%.
Accordingly, WAL's net out-of-pocket legal cost after receipt of the ordered reimbursement will be:
$3,122,000 − $1,850,000 = $1,272,000
This net cost is, of course, contingent on Kestrel's actual payment of the legal cost reimbursement ordered by the Tribunal, whether voluntarily or through enforcement proceedings.
6.4 Net Financial Outcome for WAL
For the benefit of your internal reporting and for communication to WAL's board and senior leadership, we summarize below the overall financial outcome of the arbitration for WAL:
The net value preserved and recovered — calculated as the sum of the avoided exposure (€47.3 million), the counterclaim recovery (€3.82 million), and the legal cost reimbursement ($1.85 million, converted at applicable rates) — represents a highly favorable outcome relative to the worst-case scenario in which Kestrel's claims would have been sustained in full and WAL's counterclaim dismissed. We are gratified to have played a role in achieving this result.
6.5 Enclosed Invoice
The final invoice for this engagement, bearing Invoice No. SC-27914-FINAL, is enclosed with this letter. The invoice reflects the remaining balance of professional fees and costs/disbursements accrued during the final phase of the engagement (February 2024 through April 2024), including fees for post-hearing work, review and analysis of the Partial Award, and the preparation of this closing letter.
We note that all prior invoices issued during the course of the engagement have been paid in full as of the date of this letter, and we are grateful for WAL's consistent and prompt attention to our billing. Payment of the enclosed final invoice is due within thirty (30) days of the date hereof, in accordance with the payment terms set forth in Section 7 of the engagement letter dated November 2, 2022. Please direct any questions regarding the invoice to Vivienne St. Claire or to our billing department at billing@calderwoodharkness.com.
7. Matter Closure
With the issuance of this letter and the enclosed final invoice, Calderwood & Harkness LLP considers the active engagement in ICC Case No. 27914/MHM to be closed. The engagement number 1019-00001 will remain on file in our matter-management system for reference purposes.
C&H will retain all engagement files — including pleadings, correspondence, work product, expert reports, hearing transcripts, and related materials — in accordance with the firm's document-retention policies as set forth in Section 12 of the engagement letter dated November 2, 2022. Under those policies, engagement files will be retained for a period of seven (7) years following closure of the matter, after which they will be securely destroyed unless you instruct us otherwise in writing.
We wish to emphasize that should enforcement proceedings become necessary — whether in the United States, Germany, or any other jurisdiction — a new engagement letter or formal scope amendment to the existing engagement letter will be required before C&H undertakes any additional work. We are prepared to discuss the terms and scope of any such engagement at your convenience and to mobilize promptly if circumstances require.
Finally, we wish to express our sincere appreciation for the opportunity to represent Whitmore Aerospace LLC and its Chief Executive Officer, Marcus J. Whitmore III, in this significant and complex international arbitration. The outcome achieved is a testament not only to the strength of WAL's legal and factual position but also to the exceptional cooperation and support we received from your team throughout the proceedings. We are particularly grateful to you, Dana, as well as to Gerald Huang (Vice President, Global Supply Chain Operations) and Dr. Ingrid Vollmer (Senior Vice President, Engineering & Manufacturing), whose responsiveness, technical expertise, and candor as fact witnesses were instrumental in the favorable result. It has been a privilege to serve as WAL's counsel in this matter, and we look forward to the opportunity to work with you and the WAL team again in the future.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (212) 556-4112 or at tlangston@calderwoodharkness.com should you wish to discuss any aspect of this letter or the recommended next steps.
Very truly yours,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Theodore Langston Partner
600 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Direct: (212) 556-4112
Email: tlangston@calderwoodharkness.com
Enclosure: Final Invoice (Invoice No. SC-27914-FINAL)
cc: Marcus J. Whitmore III, Chief Executive Officer, Whitmore Aerospace LLC cc: Vivienne St. Claire, Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP cc: Simone Laroche, Senior Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP cc: Jeffrey Park, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Cost Component | Kestrel (75%) | WAL (25%)
ICC Administrative Costs & Arbitrators' Fees | $930,000 | $310,000
Category | Currency | Amount
Counterclaim Award | EUR | €3,820,000
Kestrel's Share of ICC Costs (75%) | USD | $930,000
Legal Cost Reimbursement | USD | $1,850,000
Subtotal (USD component) | USD | $2,780,000
Timekeeper | Role | Billing Rate
Theodore Langston | Partner, Responsible Partner | $1,475/hr
Vivienne St. Claire | Partner, Billing Partner | $1,425/hr
Simone Laroche | Senior Associate, Lead Associate | $895/hr
Jeffrey Park | Associate, Working Associate | $625/hr
Component | Amount
Professional Fees | $2,487,300
Costs and Disbursements | $634,700
Total Engagement Value | $3,122,000
Metric | Amount
Counterclaim Recovery | €3,820,000
Legal Cost Reimbursement | $1,850,000
Exposure Avoided (Kestrel's Claimed Damages, Dismissed) | €47,300,000
Approximate Net Value Preserved/Recovered vs. Worst-Case Scenario | ~€51,120,000

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts