An Arbitration Award was entitled to collateral estoppel effect, even though the Defendants had not been parties to the arbitration.
The Court compared the claims made in the Arbitration to the claims made in the Amended Complaint, and found them to be identical. It further determined that the Plaintiff had "a full and fair opporutnity to litigate these issues."
The Court concluded that "the doctrine of collateral estoppel serves to bar [the Plaintiff] from relitigating the issue of its damages resulting from" [the matters which had been at issue in the Arbitration].
The Court found, however, that the Plaintiff was not barred from seeking to enforce against the Defendants the Award itself, because there were issues about whether the Award had been satisfied. The Court stated that the settlement of the Award contained "numerous contingencies." The claims on the Award were therefore not precluded by either res judicata or by the "one-satisfaction doctrine."