
    ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Peter C.B. MITCHELL and Christopher J. Hughes, Respondents-Appellees.
    
    Nos. 08-3432-cv(L), 08-3448-cv(C).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 9, 2009.
    Mark Rabinowitz (James R. Pranger and Christopher D. Mickus, on the brief, David Parker, Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, PC, New York, NY, of counsel), Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
    Thomas S. Martin (Joanna Shally, Jonathan R. DeFosse, Keith R. Palfin, Justin L. Harrison, on the brief), Shearman & Sterling, Washington, D.C. and New York, NY, for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, josé a. cabranes, Circuit Judges, EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform to the listing of the parties stated above.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Edward R. Korman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-appellant OneBeaeon America Insurance Company (“petitioner”) appeals from an opinion and order of the District Court entered May 30, 2008, which adopted the previously vacated order of that Court (Richard M. Berman, Judge), denied petitioner’s motion to vacate arbitration awards, and confirmed those awards. On appeal petitioner argues primarily that the District Court (1) misinterpreted the mandate of another panel of this Court, see Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Lines, 378 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir.2004), (2) erred in concluding that confirmation of the arbitration awards would not violate fundamental equitable principles, and (3) made numerous factual findings that are “clearly erroneous.” We assume the parties’ familiarity with the factual and procedural history of the case.

We agree with the District Court’s interpretation of the mandate and find no error in its conclusion that petitioner was not prejudiced in the arbitration proceedings or in its determination that confirming the arbitration awards would not violate the Court’s equitable principles. Substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its careful and thoughtful opinion and order of May 3, 2008, Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Lines, Nos. 02 Civ. 0573, 03 Civ. 7376, 2008 WL 2234634, at *10, 12 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2008), the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

We remand the cause to the District Court to determine what, if any, of the material filed in connection with this case should remain under seal.  