@davidols It states that for a period of time, 5 months, and...

@davidols
It states that for a period of time, 5 months, and before the local court, payment was not made. Dna says this is because the vendor obstructed the possibility of payment. Obviously the arbitrator wanted to focus on that intial period it wasn't paid (because the vendor stopped picking it up right around the time DNA sued him for US190m in Singapore). Why the arbitrator focused solely on this over the fact there was an injunction against termination, payment to the court and presumably document evidence of DNA attempting to pay, we will never know!