Icc arbitration clause samples

We continue to a party to an arbitration proceeding under the International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA Arbitration”) brought by Chiesi under the Factive Asset Purchase Agreement. Chiesi is claiming indemnification from us with respect to: (i) costs incurred by Chiesi to reimburse wholesalers for expired or returned Factive product, (ii) investigative costs incurred by Chiesi to defend claims from wholesalers, (iii) the cost of any government rebates paid by Chiesi in connection with sales of Factive after execution of the Asset Purchase Agreement, and (iv) legal costs incurred by Chiesi to defend against LGLS’s original claim under the ICC Arbitration. We are assessing our legal options relative to these liabilities and will challenge the merits of each claim, the amounts claimed, and our liability under each claim as appropriate. We have noted this contingent liability in the notes to our financial statements.

We were party to an arbitration proceeding under the International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA Arbitration”) brought by Chiesi under the Factive Asset Purchase Agreement. Chiesi claimed indemnification from us with respect to: (i) cost incurred by Chiesi to reimburse wholesalers for expired or returned Factive product, (ii) investigative costs incurred by Chiesi to defend claims from wholesalers, (iii) the cost of any government rebates paid by Chiesi in connection with sales of Factive after execution of the Asset Purchase Agreement, and (iv) legal costs incurred by Chiesi to defend against LGLS’s original claim under the ICC Arbitration. Merus has recently entered into a settlement agreement in respect of these claims pursuant to which the AAA Arbitration proceedings will be dismissed.

In January 2016, the DAB issued two decisions regarding certain claims by GUPCSA. One of the DAB decisions denied all claims presented by GUPCSA in respect of labor costs and benefits arising from an agreement between the Panamanian Chamber of Construction and a construction union. In the second DAB decision, GUPCSA claimed labor costs associated with time extensions granted in previous decisions on claims concerning concrete, basalt and a strike by construction union members based on a contractual clause pertaining to scaling of manual labor costs; the DAB awarded GUPCSA U.S.$24.6million on this claim. In July 2016, the DAB issued three decisions. In one decision, the DAB denied claims by GUPCSA for U.S.$99.0million and a 76-day contract extension in connection with additional costs that resulted from allegedly unforeseeable and adverse conditions in the Pacific Site. In the two other decisions, the DAB awarded U.S.$6.4million and U.S.$0.4million for claims based on certain laboratories and the drainage of certain lagoons. In six other decisions issued in 2016, the DAB recognized U.S.$56.6million of claims by GUPCSA, which had petitioned for U.S.$119.0million in the six disputes; the PCA reserved its right to submit these DAB decisions to ICC arbitration. In December 2016, the PCA received from GUPCSA two new requests for ICC arbitration with claims totaling U.S.$2.4billion; GUPCSA subsequently instituted the two arbitrations with the ICC.