what an arbitration award resolved, it could hardly delineate every single right and duty that each party had with respect to all others. Nor is it open to Noble to argue that there is a middle ground, according to which the arbitration award, to be final, must resolve not all issues between the parties but all issues relating to the relevant transaction and occurrence. This court has held that an award is final when it resolves the issues presented for arbitration and does not determine other issues beyond its delegated scope of authority, even when those other issues are relevant to the same transaction giving rise to the issues that the arbitration did address. See United States v. American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (In re Karmen), 32 F.3d 727, 732-33 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we conclude that Conn-Tech is
holding that under the filed rate doctrine a question regarding reasonable rates should be addressed to the department of insurance and that the rate plaintiff was charged is conclusively presumed reasonable under the filed rate doctrine holding that an arbitration decision that invalidated a rate increase but declined to set a new rate was final when the arbitration panels authority did not extend to setting new rates holding that with respect to the eaja the local or national market rate for legal services cannot be a special factor used to increase the rate beyond the statutory rate holding that once a rate is filed with the appropriate agency except for review of the agencys orders the courts can assume no right to a different rate on that ground that in its opinion it is the only or the more reasonable rate holding that the proper rate for prejudgment interest is the rate fixed by the parties in a contract