THE PROBLEM

Recommendations

Info

RESPONDENT’s EXHIBIT R 5 Witness Statement Paul Romario I am the present CEO of SantosD KG and in 2010 was in charge of negotiating the Development and Sales Agreement between the Parties, though some of the negotiations were done by the members of the development team for the engine JE 76/TL14b, in particular Ms Celia Fang. For us it was important that we could, already at that time, make a largely binding price offer for the engine JE 76/TL14b to Earhart SP. At the time Earhart was negotiating with a second possible supplier and put great emphasis on a binding quote. To give such a quote was only possible if our suppliers, including Wright, were already in agreement on a maximum price even if the components still had to be developed. On the basis of the maximum price we then calculated what the engine would cost in a worst case scenario and made a price offer which was slightly below that price. Taking into account that it would be very unlikely that the worst case scenario would materialize we hoped to make again with the engine. For us it was very important to be the provider for Earhart, which we could then use as a reference and marketing tool for the new generation of our engine. Thus, we were willing to take the risk that we would incur a small loss in the very unlikely event that for all components the worst case materializes. After the conclusion of the main agreement it became clear that we would also need clamps from CLAIMANT. Furthermore, I had just realized that the price clause which we had used already for our two previous co-operations (TRF 163-I; TRF 150-II) did not include an express statement as to the applicable exchange rates. Under the old contracts the lack of an explicitly stated exchange rate had not been a major issue because CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT belonged to the same group of companies. Furthermore, the exchange rate between the US$ and EQD had hardly changed over the last three years. After the sale of both Parties to different owners the exchange rate could, however, become a major issue as the present disputes shows. The exchange rate has a strong influence on who would bear the currency risk and lack of clarity always entails the risk of opportunistic behavior, of a party subsequently contesting an implicit understanding which has not been made explicit. Therefore, I insisted on the last sentence of the addendum which in my view could not be clearer. For me it was clear that the exchange rate would apply also to the fan blades. I cannot say whether CLAIMANT’s negotiators had the same view. If not, they should have said so and not let us believe that the exchange rate applied to the complete contract. In principle, the now express solution merely spells out what had already been the understanding of the parties when they entered into the Development and Sales Agreement but merely did not mention explicitly. It reflects the practice between the parties during their two previous co-operations for the TRF 163-I and the TRF 150-II. In calculating the price for the fan blades developed under these two contracts the Parties always applied the exchange rate at the time the contract was concluded. [Signature] Paul Romario © Association for the Organisation and Promotion of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot 31 Prof. Dr. Stefan Kröll
Ms Martha Maracanã 41 Azteca Lane Oceanside, Equatoriana São Paulo, 27 June 2016. Ref.: Appointment to act as Arbitrator Arbitration Proceeding Nr. 200/2016/SEC7 Claimant: Wright Ltd Respondent: SantosD KG Dear Ms Martha Maracanã, The Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil- Canada (“CAM-CCBC”) is honored to inform that you have been appointed by Claimant, Wright Ltd, to act as arbitrator in the arbitration proceeding Nr. 200/2016/SEC7. Respondent, on the other hand, appointed Prof. Lena Chowdry. Pursuant to Article 4.6 1 of the Rules, we kindly request you to fill out CAM-CCBC’s Conflict of Interest and Availability Questionnaire (“Questionnaire”), either by e- mail or the attached printout. Considering the restrictions applicable to acting as arbitrator set forth in the Rules, as well as the provisions contained in the Code of Ethics, we hereby attach copies of the following documents: (i) Request for Arbitration, submitted on 31 May 2016; (ii) Claimant’s amendment to the Request for Arbitration, submitted on 07 June 2016; (iii) Answer to the Request for Arbitration, submitted on 24 June 2016; (iv) CAM-CCBC Rules and CAM-CCBC Table of Expenses. The amount in dispute, as stated by the parties, is US$ 2,387,430.80 (two-million, three-hundred and eighty-seven, four-hundred and thirty United States dollars and eighty cents). We remain at your disposal for further inquiries. Kind regards, Case Manager 1 CAM-CCBC Rules, Article 4.6. The Secretariat of the CAM-CCBC will inform the Parties and the arbitrators of the appointments made. At the same time, the arbitrators who are appointed will be asked to fill out CAM-CCBC’s Conflict of Interest and Availability Questionnaire, referred to simply as the Questionnaire, within ten (10) days. © Association for the Organisation and Promotion of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot 32 Prof. Dr. Stefan Kröll
Page 1 and 2: Twenty Fourth Annual Willem C. Vis
Page 3 and 4: Horace Fasttrack Advocate at the Co
Page 5 and 6: 3. At the time of their sale in 201
Page 7 and 8: 15. Furthermore, Mr Lindbergh state
Page 9 and 10: CLAIMANT’s EXHIBIT C 1 1 May 2010
Page 11 and 12: 3. The BUYER undertakes to purchase
Page 13 and 14: CLAIMANT’s EXHIBIT C 3 Fri 15/01/
Page 15 and 16: CLAIMANT’s EXHIBIT C 5 Fri 15/01/
Page 17 and 18: CLAIMANT’s EXHIBIT C 7 Wed 10/02/
Page 19 and 20: Power of Attorney In the matter of
Page 21 and 22: Horace Fasttrack Advocate at the Co
Page 23 and 24: São Paulo, 08 June 2016. SantosD K
Page 25 and 26: Nomination of Arbitrator and Jurisd
Page 27 and 28: 18. The 0.5% levy by the Central Ba
Page 29 and 30: RESPONDENT’s EXHIBIT R 2 Fr 22/10
Page 31: RESPONDENT’s EXHIBIT R 4 Mo 24/10
Page 35 and 36: Arbitration Proceeding Nr. 200/2016
Page 37 and 38: 4. Where do you work or have worked
Page 39 and 40: São Paulo, 21 July 2016. Mr. Ronal
Page 41 and 42: Arbitration Proceeding Nr. 200/2016
Page 43 and 44: 4.2. The Arbitrators have answered
Page 45 and 46: PARTIES: WRIGHT LTD Herein represen
Page 47 and 48: Request for Security for Costs 1 RE
Page 49 and 50: From Mr Ronald O Zagallo President
Page 51 and 52: CLAIMANT’s EXHIBIT C 9 Witness St
Page 53 and 54: CAM-CCBC Arbitration Procedural Ord

THE PROBLEM

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?