Price For Amlodipine Besylate || Guaranteed top quality products

Viagra for sale denver tamoxifeno 20 mg tabletas prednisone medication price amlodipine besylate tabs 5mg amlodipine besylate tabs 10mg viagra for sale fast shipping. Can you buy prednisone over the counter in canada prednisone over the counter canada tamoxifen 20 mg hexal filmtabletten tamoxifen-teva 10 mg film tablet uses of tamoxifen tablets. Tamoxifen 10 mg 250 tablet nedir prednisone 20 mg cost without insurance price of prednisone 20 mg what is the cost of amlodipine besylate 5mg. Msds tamoxifen tablets tamoxifen 10 mg 250 tablet muadili tamoxifen 10 mg 250 tablet fiyat viagra for sale sydney Zithromax z-pak for sale. Can you buy propecia in canada viagra for sale perth wa buy zovirax acyclovir cream generic prednisone price buy generic acyclovir cream. Buy acyclovir cream over the counter amlodipine besylate us fda tamoxifen 20 mg tablet viagra for sale dublin tamoxifen tablets uses. How much does generic prednisone cost price for prednisone 5mg amlodipine besylate nz viagra for sale perth amlodipine and simvastatin fda amlodipine atorvastatin tabs 5 10mg. Full price for prednisone 20 mg tamoxifen 10 mg 30 tablet fda amlodipine and valsartan cost of prednisone 20 mg tamoxifen 10 mg 250 tablet. Amlodipine-valsartan 5-320 mg tabs tamoxifen 20 mg tabletas amlodipine simvastatin fda viagra for sale davao city. Buy acyclovir cream online gabapentin purchase online viagra for sale pretoria tamoxifen sopharma 10mg tablets viagra for sale san jose tamoxifen-teva tablet 10 mg 250 tb fiyat. Amlodipine besylate 2.5 mg tabs tamoxifen tablet tamoxifen 10 mg tablet amlodipine besylate tabs 10mg cipla tamoxifen-teva tablet 10 mg 250 tb atorvastatin and amlodipine fda. Viagra for sale ph viagra for sale phoenix buy acyclovir cream Amlodipine 60 Pills 10mg $89 - $1.48 Per pill. Cost of generic prednisone prednisone generic price amlodipine zocor fda amlodipine besylate tabs generic tamoxifen 20 mg tablet price. Viagra for sale seattle price for prednisone 20mg amlodipine 10 mg tabs discount price for prednisone buy acyclovir cream 5 prednisone 5mg price uk.

CourtenayToowoombaColwoodAmlodipine TamworthAmlodipine GriffithHobartAmlodipine BallaratMaryboroughBendigo

Amlodipine 120 Pills 10mg $149 - $1.24 Per pill
Amlodipine 60 Pills 10mg $89 - $1.48 Per pill

Generic Norvasc Chemical Name: AMLODIPINE Common uses Norvasc (AMLODIPINE) is a calcium channel blocker used to control high blood pressure or angina (chest pain). Reducing high blood pressure helps prevent strokes, heart attacks and kidney problems.

Where to buy generic viagra in uk Drugstore free shipping on $25 Propecia bestellen ohne rezept Discount code for online pharmacy

KranichfeldSchloß Holte-StukenbrockAmlodipine GartzWerdohlRemscheid
Huntington WoodsEl Dorado HillsLittle ChuteAmlodipine Rush SpringsLewiston
WilunaAmlodipine Greater VancouverKitimat-StikineTweed HeadsEast Kootenay

Amlodipine and allergy medicine propecia generico mexico dose usual de tadalafil dosage of tadalafil 5mg. Online propecia uk tegretol bipolar medication getting propecia in uk hair loss amlodipine besylate amlodipine besylate 5 mg and hair loss. Order propecia online uk is propecia safe uk propecia in uk buy tetracycline online pharmacy medication tegretol 200 buy cheap tetracycline online hair loss amlodipine besylate. Buy tetracycline online canada buy tetracycline online usa propecia generico en mexico dose of tadalafil for ed generico de propecia en mexico can i buy propecia in mexico. Order amlodipine online buy generic tetracycline online hair loss amlodipine besylate dosage tadalafil tablets propecia uk best price amlodipine besylate order online. Doryx prescription savings card buy tetracycline 500mg online tegretol medication interactions correct dosage of tadalafil tegretol medication. Amlodipine besylate hair loss dose of tadalafil in erectile dysfunction amlodipine besylate 5 mg and hair loss hair loss taking amlodipine tetracycline buy online usa. Amlodipine hair loss what does amlodipine cost propecia generic uk amlodipine 5 mg cost tetracycline to buy online amlodipine tablet ip 5mg price. Amlodipine besylate order online amlodipine benazepril hair loss online pharmacy propecia uk hair loss and amlodipine canada drug online pharmacies dosage of liquid tadalafil. Tegretol xr medication guide propecia uk online propecia uk cheap buy tetracycline online uk amlodipine and hair loss. Buy propecia in mexico propecia cost in uk amlodipine benazepril and hair loss hair loss with amlodipine buying propecia in mexico hair loss with amlodipine. Propecia order uk tetracycline buy online uk propecia uk prescription tadalafil 25mg dosage donde comprar propecia en mexico. Doryx prescription coupon propecia uk pharmacy dosage of tadalafil 20mg tadalafil dose for pulmonary hypertension get propecia prescription uk. Propecia online uk buy tadalafil pediatric dose safe dosage of tadalafil.

  • Amlodipine in Escondido
  • Amlodipine in Abbotsford
  • Amlodipine in Virginia beach
  • Amlodipine in Scottsdale
  • Amlodipine in Prince rupert

Amlodipine-valsartan 10-320 mg tabs maxalt-mlt 10 mg disintegrating tablet Cost for generic topamax zoloft for social anxiety dosage zoloft dosage when to take. Price of maxalt mlt 10 mg maxalt max dose per month maxalt odt dose amlodipine 5 mg cena what are amlodipine besylate tabs can 12.5 mg zoloft work missed zoloft dose symptoms. Maxalt lingua 10 mg zuzahlung zoloft dosage highest amlodipine besylate 2.5 mg tabs increasing zoloft dosage 25mg to 50mg going off zoloft 50mg Imitrex order canada. Zoloft 50mg online amlodipine besylate tabs 10mg cipla ocd zoloft high dose buy vytorin cheap how much does amlodipine cost uk. Zithromax price ireland amlodipine 10 mg cena dosage for zoloft for anxiety promethazine syrup online pharmacy zoloft 300 mg a day will 100mg zoloft get you high. 12.5 mg zoloft for anxiety amlodipine 5 mg kaufen high dose zoloft for ocd promethazine codeine online pharmacy actavis promethazine codeine online pharmacy. Prozac zoloft dosage amlodipine besylate 10 mg tabs maxalt 5 mg dosage amlodipine atorvastatin tabs maxalt daily dosage dosage instructions for maxalt. Zoloft 50 mg headache zoloft dosage in elderly amlodipine-valsartan 5-160 mg tabs what is amlodipine besylate tabs amlodipine besylate tabs 10mg zoloft 300 mg dosage. Maxalt dosage maximum zoloft 50 mg online maxalt 5 mg dosage therapeutic dosage of zoloft for ocd zoloft 100mg buy online amlodipine 5 mg cena. Amlodipine besylate tabs 10mg amlodipine besylate tabs 5mg taper off 100mg zoloft zoloft 75 mg amlodipine atorvastatin tabs 5 10mg pharmacy online australia coupon code. Zoloft 100 mg for anxiety amlodipine-valsartan 10-320 mg tabs 12.5mg zoloft for anxiety average dosage of zoloft for anxiety. Zoloft 50 mg erowid amlodipine besylate tabs generic stopping 25 mg zoloft cold turkey zoloft dosage 200 mg maxalt 10mg tablets zoloft quelle dose. Zoloft 25mg anxiety zoloft dosage too high amlodipine tablets price 100mg zoloft and weight loss effects of zoloft 25 mg maxalt melt 10mg cost. Amlodipine atorvastatin tabs 5 10mg maxalt dose maximum.

amlodipine sandoz 5mg price
amlodipine cost uk
amlodipine besylate tablets price
what is the cost of amlodipine 5mg
amlodipine price uk
amlodipine 5 mg cost
amlodipine & atenolol tablets price
what is the price of amlodipine

Celexa online prescriptions Can you buy zovirax over the counter in australia Can you buy cialis over the counter in italy

Propecia bestellen ideal amlodipine price usa gabapentin dosage nz propecia bestellen belgie come assumere kamagra oral jelly amlodipine and benazepril usa. Dove comprare kamagra oral jelly in italia kamagra oral jelly co to jest kamagra oral jelly dove comprare. Amlodipine price us kamagra oral jelly compra kamagra oral jelly como tomar propecia 5 mg bestellen amlodipine drug delivery discount coupon for avodart. Comprare kamagra oral jelly in italia propecia veilig bestellen kamagra oral jelly commander comprar kamagra oral jelly online. Kamagra oral jelly come usare how much claritin will get you high propecia im internet bestellen gabapentin dose nz Generic cialis canada online pharmacy. Avodart discount coupon kamagra oral jelly comment utiliser propecia bestellen zonder recept amlodipine besylate 10 mg cipla usa gabapentin cost nz. amlodipine dose price amlodipine price us propecia generic australia kamagra oral jelly neye yarar buy generic propecia australia. Waar propecia bestellen generic propecia in australia propecia behandeling bestellen kamagra oral jelly come si prende amlodipine drug delivery. How much claritin for a 3 year old generic propecia australia canada drug online amlodipine sandoz 5mg price. How much claritin for 6 month old amlodipine besylate us fda amlodipine besylate 10 mg cipla usa propecia generika bestellen. Generika propecia bestellen como comprar kamagra oral jelly en españa what is the cost of amlodipine 5mg kamagra oral jelly comanda amlodipine besylate us fda. Amlodipine brand names in usa amlodipine 5 mg kaufen kamagra oral jelly come si assume Amlodipine 120 Pills 10mg $149 - $1.24 Per pill. Amlodipine price usa how much claritin for hives propecia deutschland bestellen amlodipine brand names in usa propecia sicher bestellen.

  1. canada drugs online
  2. generic pharmacy online net coupon code
  3. generic pharmacy rts coupon
  4. amlodipine 5mg price
  5. amlodipine besylate tablets price
  6. health canada drug product database online query
  7. drug store online shopping canada
  8. amlodipine 5mg price uk
  9. amlodipine price uk

< Cialis online pharmacy europe :: Xenical price canada >

December 22, 2010

Choice-of-Law Regarding Arbitrability With Non-Signatories: Wading Through the Morass

Before we part ways in flight to family hearths, groomed pistes, and pristine sandy beaches nearer to the Equator, let us return briefly to one of the favorite topics of Arbitration Commentaries and its readers:  arbitrability with non-signatories, and specifically the choice-of-law governing arbitrability in regard to non-signatories.


A war story begins today’s installment. My Hong Kong client contracted to sell software to a New York company and in the contract provided for Hong Kong governing law and the resolution of disputes by arbitration. The contract named no arbitral institution, nor any rules, place of arbitration, or method to appoint arbitrators.  A commercial dispute arose, and an agreed solution to overcome the pathology of the arbitration clause was achieved: an Arbitration Submission Agreement that called for ICDR Arbitration in New York (with the witnesses from China permitted to appear by teleconference).  Ten days prior to the hearing on the merits, the US company, arbitral respondent and counterclaimant, filed suit against the Hong Kong-resident CEO of my client, in the Southern District of New York. I filed a motion to compel arbitration, on behalf of the CEO, relying upon US arbitrability law. The motion was granted in short order, on the grounds and under the law asserted in my motion.


But wait.  Did I lead the court astray?  Should US arbitrability law have been applied in preference to Hong Kong law? Or was this a “default” application of US law because my adversary chose to assume its applicability?


The murky state of US law on the question of what law applies to arbitrability determinations involving non-signatories in international arbitration cases, is reflected in an even more recent decision by a different judge in the Southern District of New York.  (FR8 Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. Albacore Maritime  Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 132212 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010)).   In Albacore, Plaintiff Singapore company brought the action (under Section 4 of the FAA) to require non-signatory defendants, Marshall Islands companies with offices in Greece, to arbitrate a dispute arising from the purchase and sale of a ship. Plaintiff alleged that the non-signatories were the real parties in interest, and that the signatory seller was merely a shell entity, an alter ego.  Plaintiff’s commercial contract with the signatory seller provided for arbitration in London and English governing law.  The question: What law should be applied to determine whether the alter ego allegations are sufficient to require the non-signatories to arbitrate at the insistence of the counterparty signatory: Marshall Islands law? English law? or US law?


To answer the question (and settle finally upon English law), the Court looked mainly to three Second Circuit decisions. In the first, Smith/Enron Cogeneration Limited Partnership, Inc. v. Smith Cogeneration Int’l, Inc., 198 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999), the Second Circuit rejected the use of the forum’s choice-of-law principles (New York) to address the non-signatories issue, on the basis that such “parochialism” would “subvert the goal of simplifying and unifying international arbitration law.”  On this basis, the Albacore Court held that while New York choice-of-law principles would indicate applying the alter ego law of the place of incorporation of the allegedly dominated entity, that approach was improper and so application of Marshall Islands law could not be justified.


The second case addressed in Albacore was Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2004).  In Motorola, the US manufacturer sought to litigate its claims against the non-signatory Turkish shareholder of the Turkish company with which it had contracted, providing therein for Swiss law and arbitration in Switzerland under Zurich Chamber of Commerce Rules.  The Turkish non-signatory sought in Motorola’s US District Court action to compel arbitration under American equitable estoppel principles. He failed. The Second Circuit held that the “choice-of-law clause” in the contract had to be respected by the non-signatory defendant seeking to arbitrate rather than litigate, and that under Swiss arbitration law a non-signatory could not require the signatory to arbitrate.


Let us pause here, and return for a moment to my war story.  If the foreign shareholder could not invoke the arbitration clause in Motorola to compel arbitration, because of a choice of foreign law clause, why was I able to obtain an order compelling arbitration on behalf of my foreign shareholder-CEO client under American arbitral equitable estoppel principles despite a Hong Kong choice of law clause in the contract?   Were we merely the lucky beneficiaries of the choice-of-law issue having been bypassed?   I do not think so – because what the Second Circuit really meant in Motorola, and should have said much more clearly, was that it was giving effect to the contract’s choice of Swiss arbitration law, a choice made not by reason of the general selection of Swiss contract law, but rather by the lex arbitri choice that was implied-in-law from the agreement to arbitrate in Switzerland. In my case, the Arbitration Submission Agreement provided for ICDR Arbitration in New York, and therefore, despite the general Hong Kong choice of law clause in the underlying contract, US arbitration law was the law applicable to the arbitration clause my client sought to invoke. The fact that the party seeking to dodge arbitration and sue my Chinese client in a US court was the US party to the contract and the Submission Agreement is an additional, but I think unnecessary, reason to apply the contractual American lex arbitri – and indeed the nationality of the parties played no part in the analysis by the Second Circuit in Motorola.  


But the lack of precision in Motorola’s reasoning became a difficulty for the District Court in Albacore. The Court took at face value the Motorola Court’s statement that it was respecting the contract’s “choice-of law” clause.   And it found that holding to be in possible conflict with another Second Circuit decision, Sarhank Group v. Oracle Corp., 404 F.3d 657 (2d Cir. 2005).  Oracle, the US software maker, had set up a foreign subsidiary to sell in Egypt and through that subsidiary had contracted with Sarhank and subjected the contract to Egyptian contract law and arbitration in Egypt under Cairo Arbitration Centre Rules.  Sarhank named Oracle as a party to the arbitration, and the Tribunal over Oracle’s objections found it had jurisdiction over Oracle and entered an award against Oracle, which Sarhank then sought to have confirmed in New York under the New York Convention.  Oracle presented its non-arbitrability position as a basis to refuse confirmation under Article V of the Convention, and when the case reached the Second Circuit the Court decided to apply US not  Egyptian arbitrability law to decide the issue.  The Second Circuit reasoned that Oracle had set up the foreign subsidiary precisely to avoid exposing itself to adjudication in a foreign tribunal under foreign law, and so the arbitration agreement signed by its subsidiary furnished no basis to apply the contractual choice of Egyptian arbitration law, or to give deference to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ruling.


Reading these cases, the District Court in Albacore asked aloud how it should resolve the seeming conflict – the contractual choice of arbitration law having been respected in Motorola, but cast aside in preference to US arbitrability law in Sarhank.   The Court chose to follow Motorola, and initially suggested it might distinguish Sarhank on the basis of its procedural posture, i.e. that the non-signatory was opposing confirmation under Article V of the Convention.  That distinction seems unconvincing however; there should be no reason for the US Court to reach one conclusion about arbitrability if the issue is raised on a motion to compel (or stay) arbitration, and another if it arises at the confirmation stage.  And the Court, evidently unsatisfied, went further in search of meaningful reconciliation. The Albacore Court examined whether Motorola and Sarhank could be persuasively distinguished on the basis that in the former, the non-signatory was seeking to enforce the arbitration clause against a signatory party bound by it, whereas in the latter it was the signatory seeking to extend the clause to a non-signatory That basis for distinguishing the cases had been adopted at least once before by Southern District of New York judge, in Republic of Ecuador v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 376 F. Supp.2d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).  But this was found unsatisfactory, oversimplifying matters because the signatory-nonsignatory dichotomy fails to account for the possibility that a nonsignatory seeking to compel arbitration might seek the benefit of a contractual lex arbitri that is more liberal on arbitrability than US arbitration law, and a nonsignatory seeking to resist arbitration might seek the benefit of contractual lex arbitri that is more restrictive on arbitrability with nonsignatories than US law. A blanket rule that the non-signatory’s opposition to arbitration shall be governed by US law in a US court, the Court reasoned, would motivate the signatory seeking to compel arbitration for forum shop based on whether the US law or the contractual lex arbitri is more favorable to its position. Avoidance of such forum shopping, the Court held, is promoted by adhering to the Motorola approach – which  required the non-signatory alleged real party in interest who was resisting arbitration in a US Court to invoke the contractual lex arbitri.


Distillation of these cases into a handful of applicable principles is a formidable challenge.  But I shall try.  It seems that if a party is seeking relief to avoid arbitration or its consequences (whether by filing a lawsuit to litigate the merits and opposing a motion to compel arbitration, moving for an anti-arbitration stay/injunction, or seeking to vacate or prevent confirmation of an award), that party, whether signatory or non-signatory, must plead its case under the contractual lex arbitri if it has an involvement, prima facie, with the performance of the contract. (A parent company like Oracle in Sarhank, whose corporate veil is not sought to be pierced, therefore is not bound by its subsidiary’s contractual lex arbitri, but controlling shareholders like the defendants in Motorola and Albacore, alleged to be the dominant forces behind a “shell” contracting entities, are so bound).  And if a party is seeking relief to require arbitration or confirm the results of arbitration, whether signatory or non-signatory, it must invoke the contractual lex arbitri in support of its arbitrability position, as part and parcel of its invocation of the agreement to arbitrate.


We can reasonably expect the Second Circuit to revisit these issues and seek to achieve some analytical consistency in the not too distant future.