1. By letter dated 7 March 2014, the Tribunal invited the Parties to confer and, if possible, agree on a schedule for the merits phase. On 24 March 2014, the Parties informed the Tribunal that they had not been able to agree on a schedule. In addition, the Claimants informed the Tribunal that they disagree with the Respondent’s proposal to bifurcate the merits phase into liability and quantum.
II. Position of the Parties
a. Position of the Respondent
2. In its letter of 24 March 2014, the Respondent argues that the bifurcation in a liability phase and a quantum phase is appropriate in the present circumstances. In essence, were the Tribunal to find in favor of the Respondent on liability, the Respondent would not have to spend the time and resources “necessary to examine the complex technical, economic and financial aspects of the claims or to decide on the proper application of legal principles to the question of quantum”.1
3. For the Respondent, the Claimants confirmed the complexities surrounding quantum (i) in their Memorial on Jurisdiction and Merits (the “Memorial”) and (ii) in their unsolicited supplemental memorial on quantum and damages dated 9 May 2013 (the “Supplemental Memorial”). First, for reasons related to the “technical complexity of valuing an asset, the EKCP”,2 the Claimants sought leave in their Memorial “to present fully the quantification of their loss by a date to be fixed by the Tribunal after consultation with the Parties”.3 Second, in a letter of 9 May 2013 accompanying the Supplemental Memorial, the Claimants informed the Tribunal that supporting documentation of two expert reports had yet to be filed.4 Third, the Claimants indicated in their Supplemental Memorial that as the proceedings advance they may file new valuations based on a different valuation date,5 including possibly a new DCF analysis.6