importance.” Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons, 126 F.3d at 22. The annulment of an arbitral award in the primary jurisdiction should therefore be given significant weight. See Pemex, 832 F.3d at 107. In fact, Article V(Z )(e) considerations may readily be incorporated into the ordinary course of a court’s Rule 60(b) analysis. Courts considering Rule 60(b)(5) motions are generally, and correctly, solicitous of a movant seeking relief when a prior judgment on which the challenged judgment relies has been vacated. See, e.g., Flowers v. S. Reg’l Physician Servs., Inc., 286 F.3d 798 (5th Cir. 2002); Cal. Med. Ass’n v. Shalala, 207 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. 2000); Maul v. Constan, 23 F.3d 143 (7th Cir. 1994); cf. Assoc. for Retarded Citizens of Conn., Inc. v. Thorne, 68 F.3d 547, 553 (2d Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>). The prudential concerns for international
holding that no reason existed to create a uniform national rule in admiralty where the case concerned attorneys fees and whether the contractual provision which provided for attorneys fees should allow a party to recover attorneys fees where it succeeded on all but one minor issue holding that rule 60b5 applied to motion for reconsideration of attorneys fees holding motion for attorneys fees was necessary predicate holding issue raised for first time in motion for reconsideration constituted waiver holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees