Yes; they would include severance, pension, and environmental remediation claims. That was clearly their position. You'd have to invite the company to the committee to discuss what actually happened there.
The point you raise about the nationality of the company is a very important one. Again, it's another of these vague and open-ended problems in this arbitration system. In this case, AbitibiBowater, as a result of the merger, at least had substantial business operations in the United States.
You do have cases like the Gallo case, involving Ontario's legislation ending the scheme to dispose of Toronto's garbage at Adams Lake, in which basically the domestic investors have already settled and been compensated. Now they've passed off the claim to a U.S. individual, who's pursuing it under NAFTA. In my view, this is totally unacceptable.
You heard from Gus Van Harten that these sorts of gimmicks are quite common, actually, in international arbitration—unfortunately common.