Is it all necessary? Who benefits? Provision for Multi-tier Dispute Resolution in International Construction Contracts

1
Is it all necessary? Who benefits?Provision for
Multi-tier Dispute Resolution in International
Construction Contracts

• Society of Construction Law
• Society of Construction Arbitrators
• Tuesday 1 July 2008

Ellis Baker MA LL.M (Cantab). Head of
Construction and Engineering Practice Group White
Case LLP, London.
2
A. How it was the early FIDIC Contracts

• FIDIC Red Book 1st Edition 1957 Clause 66
  Settlement of disputes.
• 2 elements
• Engineers decision
• Aribitration.

3
How it was the early FIDIC contracts

• FIDIC Red Book 1st Edition 1957 Clause 66
  Settlement of disputes
• First element
• Engineers decision
• If any dispute or difference of any kind
  whatsoever shall arise between the Employer or
  the Engineer and the Contractor in connection
  with or arising out of the Contract or the
  carrying out of the Works it shall be referred
  to and settled by the Engineer
• Such decision in respect of every matter so
  referred shall be final and binding upon the
  Employer and the Contractor until the completion
  of the work

4
How it was the early FIDIC contracts

• FIDIC Red Book 1st Edition 1957 Clause 66
  Settlement of disputes
• Second element
• Arbitration.
• either the Employer or the Contractor may
  within 90 days after receiving notice of such
  decision require that the matter shall be
  referred to an arbitrator
• The award of the arbitrator shall be final and
  binding on the parties.

5
How it was the early FIDIC contracts

• FIDIC Red Book 2nd edition 1969
• 3rd edition 1977
• Clause 67 maintains 2 element approach.

6
How it was the early FIDIC Contracts

• The arbitration element changes
• Clause 66 1st edition Red Book
• such reference shall be deemed to be a
  submission to arbitration within the meaning of
  the Arbitration Laws of the country to the Law
  of which the Contract is subject.
• Clause 67 2nd and 3rd edition Red Book
• All disputes or differences in respect of which
  the decision (if any) of the Engineer has not
  become final and binding as aforesaid shall be
  finally settled under the Rules of Conciliation
  and Arbitration of the International Chamber of
  Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in
  accordance with the said Rules.

7
How it was the early FIDIC Contracts

• How the early FIDIC contracts worked Clauses
  66/67
• Engineers decision (first element)
• All disputes or differences referred to Engineer
  (condition precedent).
• Engineers decision due within 90 days.
• Engineers decision final and binding pro tem,
  subject to arbitration.
• Arbitration (second element)
• Reference to arbitration by Employer or
  Contractor to be made within 90 days of decision,
  failing which it became final and binding
  absolutely.
• If no decision received from Engineer within 90
  days, parties had further 90 days to refer to
  arbitration.
• References to arbitration finally settled (under
  ICC Rules 2nd and 3rd Edition) by one or more
  arbitrator appointed under the Rules.

8
Changes on the way the late 80s and early 90s

• FIDIC Red Book 4th edition 1987 (1988 reprint)
• Clause 67
• While the stages of engineers decision and
  reference to arbitration were recognisably the
  same, Clause 67 had been significantly revised.
• The 4th Edition introduces fundamental changes
  to the disputes procedure.
• (Edward Corbett FIDIC 4th A Practical Legal
  Guide, 1991).

9
Changes on the way the late 80s and early 90s

• FIDIC Red Book 4th edition 1987 (1988 reprint)
• Clause 67 amendments.
• Both reference to Engineer of dispute and
  Engineers decision shall state that it is made
  pursuant to this Clause (to remove doubts as to
  whether other communications were references or
  decisions).
• Time limits for Engineers decision and reference
  to arbitration reduced from 90 days to 84 days.

10
Changes on the way the late 80s and early 90s

• FIDIC Red Book 4th edition 1987 (1988 reprint)
• Clause 67 amendments
• Major innovation
• Introduction of Amicable Settlement stage
• Sub-clause 67.2.

11
Changes on the way the late 80s and early 90s

• FIDIC Red Book 4th edition 1987 (1988 reprint)
• Sub-Clause 67.2
• Amicable Settlement
• Where notice of intention to commence arbitration
  as to a dispute has been given in accordance with
  Sub-Clause 67.1, the parties shall attempt to
  settle such dispute amicably before the
  commencement of arbitration. Provided that,
  unless the parties otherwise agree, arbitration
  may be commenced on or after the fifty-sixth day
  after the day on which notice of intention to
  commence arbitration of such dispute was given,
  even if no attempt at amicable settlement thereof
  has been made.

12
Changes on the way the late 80s and early 90s

• FIDIC Red Book 4th edition 1987 (1988 reprint)
• How the procedure worked
• Reference to Engineer (84 days).
• Reference to Arbitration (70 days).
• Arbitration not to be commenced until Amicable
  Settlement attempted (or 56 days in default).
• ICC arbitration.

13
Changes on the way the late 1980s and early 90s

• FIDIC Amicable Settlement
• Note that an early attempt to introduce amicable
  settlement (and expert determination) in the
  FIDIC Yellow Book 2nd edition was regarded as
  unsuccessful at the time of the 3rd edition
• The provisions in the Second Edition of the EM
  Conditions enabling the parties to refer
  matters to an expert have been removed as have
  the specific requirements for the parties to
  attempt amicable settlement. It was considered
  that this last provision was of little use since
  it merely enabled a party who had no wish to
  settle matters amicably to delay the
  commencement of arbitration
• Dan Graham, International Construction Law Review
  1987.

14
Changes on the way - the late 80s and early 90s

• Not all FIDIC contracts changed at the same time.
• FIDIC Yellow Book Conditions of Contract for
  Electrical and Mechanical Works 3rd edition 1988.
• Clause 50.1
• If either party is dissatisfied with a decision
  or instruction of the Engineer as confirmed,
  reversed or varied in accordance with Clause 2 he
  may refer the matter to arbitration pursuant to
  Sub-Clause 50.2.
• Unless the dissatisfied party has notified the
  other party and the Engineer within 56 days of
  such decision or instruction of his intention to
  refer the matter to arbitration, he shall be
  deemed to have accepted the decision as final.
• Reference to arbitration shall not relieve the
  Contractor of his obligation to proceed with the
  Works in accordance with the Engineers decision
  or instruction, nor relieve the Employer of any
  of his obligations under the Contract.
• The Contractor shall in any such arbitration be
  at liberty to rely on reasons additional to the
  reasons stated in the notice given under
  Sub-Clause 2.7.

15
Changes on the way the late 80s and early 90s

• FIDIC Yellow Book 3rd edition 1988
• Clause 50.2
• If at any time any question, dispute or
  difference shall arise between the Employer and
  the Contractor in connection with or arising out
  of the Contract or the carrying out of the Works
  either party shall be entitled to refer the
  matter to be finally settled by arbitration in
  accordance with the Rules of Conciliation and
  Arbitration of the International Chamber of
  Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in
  accordance with those Rules, or by arbitration in
  accordance with such other rules as are specified
  in Part II.
• The Arbitrator(s) shall have full power to open
  up, review and revise
• (a) any decision or instruction of the Engineer
  referred to arbitration pursuant to
  Sub-Clause 50.1, and
• (b) any certificate of the Engineer related to
  the dispute.

16
Changes on the way the late 80s and early 90s

• FIDIC Yellow Book 3rd edition 1988
• Clause 50.4
• Formal notice of arbitration must be given to the
  other party, and where required to the
  appropriate arbitration body, no later than
  84 days after the issue of the Final Certificate
  of Payment.

17
Changes on the way the late 80s and early 90s

• So in 1988 FIDIC forms offered different dispute
  resolution models.

18
New models of dispute resolution in the 1990s

• Mega-projects the Channel Tunnel
• Clause 67 Settlement of disputes.
• Any dispute or difference should
• in the first place be referred in writing to and
  be settled by a Panel of three persons (acting as
  independent experts but not as arbitrators).
• Provided the decision is unanimous Such
  unanimous decision shall be final and binding
  upon the Contractor and the Employer unless the
  dispute or difference has been referred to
  arbitration.
• All disputes or differences shall be finally
  settled under the Rules of Conciliation and
  Arbitration of the International Chamber of
  Commerce by three arbitrators appointed under
  such Rules.

19
New models of dispute resolution in the 1990s

• Mega-projects the Channel Tunnel
• The Channel Tunnel Group v Balfour Beatty 1992
  56 BLR 1 Court of Appeal Neill LJ
• Evans J held that a stay should be refused
  because the time for arbitration had not arrived
  there has not yet been a decision by, or even a
  reference to, the panel under clause 67(1).
• Many types of contract provide for some
  preliminary step to be taken before there is an
  arbitration I cannot see that this entitles a
  party to disregard the arbitration procedure
  altogether and start an action at law, merely
  because the preliminary step has not been taken.

20
New models of dispute resoltuion in the 1990s

• Mega-projects the Channel Tunnel
• Channel Tunnel Group v Balfour Beatty 1993 BLR
  22 House of Lords
• Those who make agreements for the resolution of
  disputes must show good reasons for departing
  from them having promised to take their
  complaints to the experts and if necessary to the
  arbitrators, that is where the appellants should
  go. The fact that the appellants now find their
  chosen method too slow to suit their purpose is
  to my way of thinking quite beside the point.
• (per Lord Mustill).

21
New models of dispute resolution in the 1990s

• Mega-projects Hong Kong International Airport
  1992
• Mass Transit Rail Corporation HK Government
• Airport Core Programme
• Building Works/Engineering works
• 3-tier Structure 4-tier Structure
• Decision of engineer Decision of
  architect/engineer
• Mediation (condition precedent) Mediation
• Arbitration Adjudication
• Arbitration

22
New models of dispute resolution in the 1990s

• Mega-Projects Hong Kong International Airport
  1992
• Provisional Airport Authority Contracts
• 4-tier Structure
• Decision of engineer
• Appeal to Project Director
• Reference to Dispute Review Board (DRB)
• Arbitration

23
New models of dispute resolution in the 1990s

• Beyond FIDIC the ENAA Model Form
• Engineering Advancement Association of Japan
  Model Form
• International Contract for Power Plant
  Construction 1996
• Clause 6.1(a) If any dispute or difference of
  any kind whatsoever shall arise between the Owner
  and the Contractor the parties shall seeks to
  resolve any such dispute or difference by mutual
  consultation.

24
New model of dispute resolution in the 1990s

• Beyond FIDIC the ENAA Model Form 1996
• Clause 6.1(b)
• If the parties fail to solve such dispute or
  difference by mutual consultation, then either
  party may give to the other party a notice that a
  dispute or difference exists, specifying its
  nature, the point(s) in issue and its intention
  to refer the dispute to arbitration. If the
  parties fail to resolve such dispute or
  difference by further consultation within a
  period of thirty (30) days from the date upon
  which such notice of dispute has been given, the
  dispute or difference shall be referred to and
  finally settled by arbitration under the Rules of
  Conciliation and Arbitration of the International
  Chamber of Commerce (ICC) or any other rules as
  may be agreed.

25
New models of dispute resolution in the 1990s

• Beyond FIDIC the ENAA Model Form
• Clause 6.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of
  Clause 6.1 (Arbitration) above save insofar as
  they relate to mutual consultation, either party
  may give a notice to the other of its desire to
  refer to an Expert any dispute or difference.
• if either party is not satisfied with a
  decision by the Expert as provided in the
  preceding paragraph such dispute or difference
  may be referred to and finally settled by
  arbitration.

26
Developments in SE Asia

• Hong Kong SAR Private Edition 2006
• 41.1 (b) Each party shall designate one of its
  own senior executives as its representative
  and the Designated Representatives shall
  endeavour to settle disputes that arise during
  the carrying out of the Works.
• (c) The Designated Representatives shall have
  the authority to settle disputes and shall not
  be involved in the day to day administration
  of the Contract.
• 41.2 If a dispute arises under or in connection
  with the Contract, the Architect shall, at the
  request of either party, immediately refer the
  dispute to the Designated Representatives.

27
Developments in SE Asia

• Hong Kong SAR Private Edition 2006
• 41.3 If the dispute is not resolved by the
  Designated Representatives within 28 days
  either party may refer the dispute to
  mediation.
• 41.4 If the dispute is not settled by mediation
  within 28 days either party may refer the
  dispute to arbitration.

28
Developments in SE Asia

• Singapore Institute of Architects (S/A)Lump Sum
  Edition 2005
• (Malaysia PAM Clauses 34 and 35 are in similar
  words).
• Clause 37.1 Any dispute between the Employer and
  the Contractor shall be referred to the
  arbitration and final decision of a person to be
  agreed by the parties

29
Developments in SE Asia

• SIA Clause 38
• Notwithstanding Clause 37(1), of the Conditions,
• upon the agreement of both the Employer and the
  Contractor, the Parties may refer their dispute
  for mediation under the Mediation Rules of the
  SIA.
• For the avoidance of doubt, prior reference of
  the dispute to mediation under this clause shall
  not be a condition precedent for its reference
  to arbitration by either the Contractor or the
  Employer.

30
The modern international construction and
engineering forms

• FIDIC Dispute Boards
• FIDIC Orange Book 1995. Clause 20.
• 3 tier structure
• Dispute between Employer and Contractor referred
  to Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB).
• DAB decision final and binding unless a party
  dissatisfied.
• Amicable settlement.
• Arbitration.
• 1996 Supplement to the 4th Edition of the Red
  Book
• 1997 Supplement to the 3rd Edition of the Yellow
  Book introduced similar model for Clause 50.

31
The modern international construction and
engineering forms

• FIDIC Dispute Boards.
• The FIDIC Rainbow Suite 1999 developed the model.
• Clause 20 Red Book, Yellow Book, Silver Book
• 3 tier structure
• Dispute Adjudication Board
• Amicable Settlement
• Arbitration

32
The modern international construction and
engineering forms

• FIDIC Rainbow Suite Gold Book
• Conditions of Contract for Design Build and
  Operate Projects introduces
• 20.4 Avoidance of disputes.
• If at any time the Parties so agree, they may
  jointly refer a matter to the DAB in writing with
  a request to provide assistance and/or informally
  discuss and attempt to resolve any disagreement
• The Parties are not bound to act upon any advice
  given during such informal meetings and the DAB
  shall not be bound in any future Dispute
  Resolution process and decision by any views
  given during the informal assistance process

33
The modern international construction and
engineering forms

• Institution of Chemical Engineers I Chem E
  International Edition 2007.
• Red, Green, Burgundy Books.
• Clause 44 Disputes
• 44.1 The Purchaser and the Contractor shall
  endeavour to avoid the escalation of problems
  into disputes as defined in sub-clause 44.4 and
  to avoid disputes both between themselves and
  with third parties including sub-contractors.

34
The modern international construction and
engineering forms

• I Chem E International Editions 2007
• Clause 44 Disputes.
• 44.4 No matter shall constitute or give rise to
  a dispute unless it has been referred to the
  Project Manager
• 44.6 The parties shall attempt in good faith to
  negotiate a settlement of any dispute or
  difference
• 44.7 If a dispute cannot be resolved by
  negotiation the parties may by agreement refer
  it to mediation
• 45.1 Any dispute which has not been settled
  shall be referred to and finally resolved by
  arbitration.

35
The modern international construction and
engineering forms

• I Chem E International Editions 2007
• Options Dispute Review Board (DRB)
• Clause 46 Any decision issued by the DRB shall be
  binding but not final and the dispute shall be
  resolved by agreement or by reference to an
  Expert or to arbitration.
• Clause 47 Reference to an Expert.
• Once referred to an Expert, dispute ceases to
  be referable to arbitration.
• Findings are final, conclusive and binding.

36
Comment and analysis

• So, does multi-tier dispute resolution benefit
  the parties if so what are the respective
  advantages and disadvantages of the respective
  models?

37
How it was the early FIDIC Contracts

• Key-features of early FIDIC Contract Clause 66/67
• Simplicity - 2 stage procedure
• Engineer (a condition precedent)
• Arbitration.
• Finality - Engineers decision binding pro tem
• and after 90 days absolutely.
• Arbitration tribunals decision final.

38
Comment and analysis

• Mega-projects Hong Kong Airport Airport
  Authority Contracts.
• there were few referrals. The DRB made six
  binding decisions, with only one case being taken
  to arbitration. The relatively low number of
  referrals suggests that the existence of the DRB
  deferred the referral of disputes and it may be
  that it encouraged the settlement of matters
  between the parties without further recourse to
  third party intervention.
• Keith Brandt
• Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Conference,
• Hong Kong 2002.

39
Comment and analysis

• Mega-projects Hong Kong Airport

40
Comment and analysis

• FIDIC Amicable Dispute Settlement
• The addition of a new Clause 67.2 requiring an
  attempt at Amicable Settlement could also have
  important consequences for the avoidance of
  lengthy legal disputes A Construction Contract
  can generate large quantities of correspondence,
  numerous minor disputes and strong feelings
  between the people concerned. A further
  opportunity to review and discuss their
  differences, probably at Head Office rather than
  site level, may well encourage the parties to
  settle their mutual claims and avoid the
  considerable costs of an Arbitration.
• Brian Totterdill, Engineer
• International Construction Law Review 1987

41
Comment and analysis

• FIDIC Amicable Settlement
• Sub-Clause 20.5
• Despite the criticisms that have been levelled
  at Sub-Clause 20.5 (amicable settlement of
  disputes) it can provide a valuable opportunity
  for the parties to arrive at a negotiated
  resolution of the dispute before proceeding to a
  costly formal determination through arbitration.
• Dale Bracken
• International Construction Law Review 2006

42
Comment and analysis

• FIDIC Amicable Settlement
• The FIDIC provision for amicable settlement may
  be seen as strong encouragement to get on with
  resolving the dispute, or at least with settling
  some of the issues involved, well in advance of
  any arbitration hearing
• The FIDIC provision in Sub-Clause 67.2 is however
  very general, and leaves to the parties the need
  to select a procedure and cost sharing basis.
  Unfortunately, the parties may need to spend
  most of the limited time available in discussing
  what they should do, rather than getting on with
  it.
• David Hollands, Engineer, New Zealand
• International Construction Law Review 1989

43
Comment and analysis

• Dispute Boards
• Dispute Review Boards.
• A DRB has certain psychological advantages over
  formal adversarial dispute resolution e.g.
  early venting of opinions and emotions before
  impartial experts, thus defusing personal
  antagonisms at an early stage and not allowing
  them to fester a conciliatory atmosphere
  producing Recommendations that are not compulsory
  (but can be ignored only at considerable risk)
  quick resolution of disputes so that the parties
  put the disagreement(s) behind them promptly and
  retain focus on the principal goal of both
  parties the successful completion of the
  project.
• The Dispute Review Board system does work!
• Gordon Jaynes
• International Construction Law Review, 1993

44
Comment and analysis

• Dispute Boards
• the DRB procedure is now very popular in
  large-scale infrastructure projects, two very
  high profile examples of its use being on the
  Channel Tunnel and Hong Kong Airport projects
• The DRB is set up at the beginning of the
  project, and through regular site visits, is
  involved from day one in the project. It
  therefore becomes an inherent part of the
  project, and thus will be in a very good position
  to assist in the speedy resolution of disputes as
  and when they arise.
• Rohan Shorland, Journal of the CharteredInstitute
  of Arbitrators 1999.

45
Comment and analysis

• Dispute Boards
• they are in fact better than arbitration. Not
  only do they work well, but they indeed work
  faster, cheaper and in a much less contentious
  manner than arbitration tribunals.
• Alexis Mourre, InternationalConstruction Law
  Review 2006.

46
Comment and analysis

• Dispute Boards
• DRBs are perceived as comparing favourably with
  both ad hoc mediation and the UK statutory
  adjudication scheme.
• Keith Brandt, Solicitor, Hong KongChartered
  Institute of ArbitratorsConference, Hong Kong
  2002.

47
Comment and analysis

• Dispute Boards
• Examples of use cited by Brandt.
• Channel Tunnel UKChannel Tunnel Rail Link
  UKVasco da Gama Bridge over Tagus
  PortugalAthens Mass Rapid Transit GreeceLHDA
  Dam and Transfer Gallery LesothoMaeslant Water
  Barrier NetherlandsExtran Hydro Development
  PRCXiaolangdi Multipurpose Project PRCLongtan
  Hydro Development PRC.

48
Comment and analysis

• Dispute Boards Advantages
• Legitimacy in choice by parties.
• Regular visits give in-depth understanding of
  project.
• DRB involved early, when memories and events
  fresh.
• No opportunity for ambush as in adjudication.
• Technical expertise of DRB personnel.
• No obligation to produce compromise.
• Non-binding nature of DRB decisions a virtue,
  less impression of winner/loser.
• DRB inhibits unmeritorious claims.
• Keith Brandt, Hong Kong 2002.

49
Comment and analysis

• Dispute Boards Why dispute boards succeed
• Regular site meetings deal with complaints
  early.
• Gives all parties a chance to have a say.
• Parties on site unite against DRB members as
  outsiders.
• Most DRB members are non-lawyers and more
  user-friendly.
• Experience shows that dispute boards are
  successful, that is, they deal with and finally
  dispose of virtually all the disputes that come
  before them. Broadly it seems that something in
  the order of 97 of disputes referred to a
  dispute board will not go beyond that procedure
  into arbitration or litigation.
• Dr Robert Gaitskell QCICC Conference, London 2004

50
Comment and analysis

• Dispute Boards Disadvantages
• Cost warranted only on larger projects.
• Cost disproportionate to benefit on all but
  largest projects.
• Cost Adjudication and mediation are cheaper.
• Keith Brandt Hong Kong 2002

51
Comment and analysis

• Dispute Boards Costs
• DB will generally cost in the order of 0.2 of
  project costs.
• Dr R. Gaitskell, ICC Conference 2004.

52
Comment and analysis

• Dispute Boards
• 1995 World Bank makes DBs mandatory for all IBRD
  financed projects over US 50 million.
• 1997 Asian Development Bank
• European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  follow suit.

53
Comment and analysis

• Dispute Boards
• ICC 3 types of Board 2004
• DRB Recommendations.
• DAB Decisions.
• DB Hybrid issues recommendations unless
  decisions requested.

54
Comment and analysis

• Dispute Boards compared with Dispute Resolution
  Adviser
• Unlike most forms of dispute resolution where a
  third party neutral or tribunal is appointed once
  a dispute has arisen, the DRA is appointed at the
  commencement of a project, generally well before
  any disagreements have come to a head, thereby
  promoting dispute avoidance the most
  significant attribute of the DRA system is
  perhaps its ability to prevent disputes from
  arising.
• Andrzej Cierpicki, Asian Dispute Review 2008

55
Comment and analysis

• Dispute Resolution Adviser
• DRA used on 60 projects since 1995
• HK Govt Architectural Services Department study
• Average cost savings with DRA 2.2
• Average cost savings with other provision 1.7
• Increase in duration of project through EoT
• with DRA 7.2
• with other provision 15.7

56
Comment and analysis

• Med-Arb
• Glencot Development and Design Co v Ben Barrett
  Son (Contractors) Ltd. 2001 80 ConLR 14
• A mediator will or may have to listen to
  arguments and hear things which may be completely
  irrelevant to the dispute in the adjudication but
  which might be prejudicial to its determination.
• Mr Talbot was correct in making it clear to
  parties that what he might be doing was a
  departure from adjudication and in getting their
  agreement to it. Such agreement was essential.
  Of course an agreement in advance, even if a
  formal written agreement, may not be effective in
  depriving a party of its right to question a
  later decision on the grounds of apparent or
  actual bias.
• (per HH Judge Humphrey Lloyd QC.)

57
Comment and analysis

• Looking forward LONDON 2012
• Olympic Delivery Authority
• Independent Dispute Avoidance Panel (IDAP)
• Chair Dr Martin Barnes
• 10 construction professionals
• Adjudication Panel decides disputes not avoided
  by IDAP
• Chair Peter Chapman
• 11 adjudicators

58
Conclusions

• Is what all necessary?
• The parties should have an opportunity to achieve
  settlement.
• Amicable Settlement or Mediation or Non-binding
  DRB.

59
Conclusions

• Does the additional layer of a DB assist in
  avoidance of disputes?
• Doubtful periodic visits may not be enough to
  ensure genuine familiarity with parties or
  project.
• A worthwhile alternative for consideration
• The DRA offers real engagement with parties and
  project and its capacity for dispute avoidance
  merits further study.

60
Who benefits?

• Of course, the DR community benefits in one sense
  from multiple tiers of professional involvement.
• But multi-tier dispute resolution is only
  sustainable if it benefits the stake-holders, the
  parties.

61
Conclusions

• So, is it all necessary?
• One large international projects it is necessary
  to provide sophisticated mechanisms to try to
  prevent disputes from going to arbitration.
• Mechanisms capable of doing this are necessary.
  If the mechanisms and the professionals who
  operate them deliver that, the stake-holders are
  the real beneficiaries.

62
Worldwide. For Our Clients.
www.whitecase.com
White Case, a New York State registered limited
liability partnership, is engaged in the practice
of law directly and through entities compliant
with regulations regarding the practice of law in
the countries and jurisdictions in which we have
offices.