MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
b. Dr. Arbitrator has no financial interest in the outcome of the arbitration
10. Since the relationship between Dr. Arbitrator and CLAIMANT is not sufficiently close to
make any reasonable person doubt his impartiality or independence [Commonwealth Coatings
Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. (U.S.); Hunt v. Mobil Oil Corp. (U.S.); Local 814, Int'l
Bhd. of Teamsters v. J & B Installers & Moving, Inc. (U.S.); National Shipping Company of
Saudi Arabia v. Transamerican Steamship Corp. (U.S.); OLG Naumburg, 19 December 2001
(Germany); von Hof, p. 80; Y.B. XXII (1997) p. 234], there have to be additional matters to
justify his challenge. An indication for bias would be given if Dr. Arbitrator had any financial
interest in the outcome of the arbitration [cf. Middlesex Mutual Ins. Co. v. Levine (U.S.);
Transmarine Seaways Corp. of Monrovia v. Marc Rich & Co. A.G. (U.S.); Reed & Martin,
Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. (U.S.); National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia,
Transamerican Steamship Corp. (U.S.); Sun Refining & Marketing Co. v. Statheros Shipping
Corp. of Monrovia, Liberia (U.S.); U.S. Wrestling Federation v. Wrestling Division of AAU,
Inc. (U.S.); Born (1 st ed.), p. 601; Pellonpää/Caron, p. 160]. This would be the case if he had
a reasonable expectation of increasing his own income unduly favoring CLAIMANT during
the arbitration proceedings, in order to procure additional business for Multiland Associates.
11. However, his participation in this law firm is far too unimportant to suggest any direct
financial interest in the outcome of the arbitration. After the merger of 1 January 2003 there
will be 75 partners in 15 offices at different locations [Procedural Order No. 2, Clarification
No. 18]. The income earned by each partner is in large part determined by the profits of the
particular individual office and only in small part the profits of the entire firm [Procedural
Order No. 2, Clarification No. 19]. Dr. Arbitrator’s participation in hypothetical fees earned
in future cases is so negligible that a financial interest in the outcome of the arbitration cannot
be assumed.
c. Dr. Arbitrator’s disclosure underlines his impartiality and independence
12. In addition, Dr. Arbitrator disclosed the merger of the law firms and therefore complied
exactly with his obligations under § 16.3 DIS Rules. He even met the high requirements set
by the leading U.S. Supreme Court decision in a domestic case, Commonwealth Coatings
Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. (U.S.) [Y.B. XXII (1997) p. 232; Born (1 st ed.), p. 598]. In
this decision, the Supreme Court held that arbitrators have to disclose any circumstances that
might impact their impartiality, since the same ethical standards apply to both judges and
6