Originally from World Arbitration And Mediation Review (WAMR)

Preview Page

"DAMAGES IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION:

STRATEGIES, TECHNIQUES & PRESENTATION"

INTRODUCTION TO ACT II
Andrea K. Bjorklund, Workshop Co-Chair

Thank you very much, Rusty. We are so pleased that you could
join us here today, and I would like to add my welcome to that
extended to you by Stephen. It is good to see you all in Dallas and
thank you for coming for our program.
I was encouraged to hear the questions that came after Act I.
Some of them presaged very nicely the action that we are going to see
in the forthcoming scenes. Now we start with Act II, Scene I, which
shows the lawyers for each side discussing evidentiary issues and the
kinds of documentation they need to support their relative claims.
They also address in more detail some of the ramifications of the
decision to bifurcate liability and quantum. Among them is the
tendency, which we have already noted, to focus a lot of time and
attention on the merits of the case and to postpone consideration of
matters that are more closely related to the quantum proceedings.
United’s lawyers are meeting to discuss the evidence they need to
maximize their claim. Paragonia’s lawyers, on the other hand, want to
maximize the value of the set-off and minimize the plant’s value as a
going concern.
Joining us this morning are United’s attorneys, who are ably
played by Fernando Aguilar and Susan Franck, and Paragonia’s
attorneys who are represented by Anne Hoffmann and Mark Kantor.

ACT II– PREPARING FOR THE QUANTUM HEARING
SCENE I – PROBLEMS WITH EVIDENCE IN VALUATION

DISCUSSION BY COUNSEL FOR UNITED
SUSAN FRANCK: You know, Fernando, I have been going over the
files in the Paragonia case and this is actually the first time I have
prepared for a damages hearing. Everything else I have ever worked
on has settled well before we got to this stage. So, it seems to me as if
it is been a long time since that merits hearing, what two, three,