1. The Arbitral Tribunal decided, by Procedural Order No. 6, to maintain the calendar of submissions on the merits, established through common agreement in Procedural Order No. 1 as amended by Procedural Orders No. 2 and 3, and to establish a schedule for submissions on jurisdiction and for a decision on the potential bifurcation of the proceedings. In issuing its order, the Arbitral Tribunal indicated that it did not take into account the letter dated 29 August 2012, because it considered it to be untimely.
2. By e-mail dated 30 August 2012, the Respondent requested the reconsideration of the decision taken by the Arbitral Tribunal in Procedural Order No. 6 “taking into account the arguments submitted in good faith” in its letter dated 29 August, 2012. Alternatively, the Respondent requested an extension of 45 days, until Monday, 29 of October 2012, or whatever extension the Arbitral Tribunal may deem appropriate to file its Response “taking into account (i) the inclusion of new claims by the Claimants in the Statement of Claim, (ii) the recent hiring of the legal team of Dechert and (iii) that the Respondent has only received the electronic damages model of Dr. Manuel Abdala, a Claimant’s expert, last Wednesday, 29 August 2012 (in an answer to a request made three days prior).” The Respondent explained that this extension should allow the dates of the hearings established in the Terms of Appointment and Procedural Order No. 1 to be maintained.
3. In its letter dated 29 August 2012, referred to in its e-mail dated August 30, 2012, the Respondent argued that the Statement of Claim contained new claims with respect to the Notice of Arbitration on which the agreement on the schedule set forth in the Terms of Appointment and Procedural Order No. 1. The Respondent submitted additional jurisdictional arguments for the bifurcation of the proceedings or an extension to file the Response, declaring the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and that the new claims are inadmissible according to the following: