Originally from Journal of Damages in International Arbitration

Preview Page

PANEL 1: Perspectives on Valuing a Case 

The panel was convened at 9:15 a.m. on 18 November 2013 by Rory Walck, who introduced panelists Larry Work-Dembowski, an associate in Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton’s Washington, D.C. office, Joseph Profaizer, a partner at Paul Hastings’ Washington, D.C. office, and Geoffrey Senogles, a Vice-President of Charles River Associates. The panel was moderated by Michael Nolan, a partner in Milbank, Tweed, Hadley and McCloy’s Washington, D.C. office and a member of the firm’s Litigation & Arbitration Group.

Remarks by Michael Nolan

The topic with which we begin is perspective on valuing a case. We will focus on the valuation that goes on at the outset of a case, and in particular on the interaction between the various constituencies that exist within a team in a complex arbitration. In talking about this topic, there was something of a natural kind of division or affinity that we encountered. Geoff is an expert and will provide that perspective. Larry will provide a lawyer’s perspective as to how one would go about presenting technically and dealing as an administrative matter damages issues. Joe will provide a client’s perspective. So, there was something of a natural division around those three constituencies.

Our format will be to throw out a question or two that we hope will “mood up” a little bit on the panel, and we also hope that you‘ll participate in that discussion.

We thought we would begin with a question that‘s fundamental in terms of the formulation of a case in a case strategy. And that question really goes to the side where the team should be thinking about pitching the level of quantum. How should experts in their instructing lawyers seek to manage the expectations of their clients regarding where to pitch the level of quantum assessed? Obviously, the objective is to have a presentation to the tribunal that is persuasive. But what does that mean?