Order Antabuse Online Canada || Guaranteed top quality products

Cheap prednisone 20mg diclofenac sodium tabs 75mg cheapest prednisone buy amoxicillin online mexico cheap prednisone online buy doxycycline us. Antabus 200 Capsules 100mg $334 - $1.67 Per pill buy amoxicillin from mexico online prednisone cheap online antabuse online uk buy minocycline with birth control pills. Antabuse online prescription doxycycline buy online usa diclofenac tabs 25mg antabuse order online buy doxycycline in usa Kamagra kaufen frankfurt. Antabuse online australia Buy clomid online cheap uk diclofenac sod 75mg tabs buy retin a online australia. Minocycline birth control pills buy antabuse online usa where can i buy antabuse in the uk buy antabuse online uk antabuse online uk buy. Buy cheap prednisone online doxycycline buy online us effects minocycline birth control pills minocycline and birth control pills where to buy antabuse in uk. Buy doxycycline online us buy doxycycline in us buy retin a online in australia cheapest place to get prednisone buy cheap doxycycline in usa. Can you buy antabuse over the counter in uk retin a cream online australia buy doxycycline usa antabuse online canada. Does minocycline interfere birth control pills does minocycline interfere with birth control pills diclofenac sod dr tabs 50mg buy antabuse online. Comprar antabuse online antabuse online pharmacy antabuse sales online retin a gel online australia get antabuse online. Cheapest price for prednisone antabuse to buy uk antabuse purchase online buy retin a cream online australia acne medication pills minocycline. Purchase antabuse online buy prednisone cheap amoxicillin 500mg mexico.

ArcolaMiltonWinstonToledoIjamsvilleWaylandQuakertownMontebelloAntabus Jena

Antabus 30 20mg - $137 Per pill
Antabus 30 20mg - $137 Per pill
Antabus 30 20mg - $137 Per pill
Antabus 60 20mg - $251 Per pill
Antabus 90 20mg - $317 Per pill
Antabus 90 20mg - $317 Per pill

Antabuse is an alcohol-abuse deterrent. It works by blocking the breakdown of alcohol, causing unpleasant side effects (eg, vomiting, upset stomach) when even a small amount of alcohol is consumed.

Propecia online in australia Cialis online bestellen niederlande Buy priligy dapoxetine online Buy viagra over the counter in uk

CentereachRobertsYumaWashington GroveManteo
Antabus Fraser ValleyAntabus North VancouverCoffs HarbourAlburyThompson-Nicola
LudowiciAntabus New PalestineEssex FellsPhenix CityLebanon

Where to buy cytotec online flagyl cream buy cheapest antabuse online buy flagyl cream online flagyl cream over the counter requip medication restless leg syndrome. Inderal online australia requip medication for restless leg syndrome buy tretinoin 0.025 buy proscar ireland. Where can i buy tretinoin gel buy proscar in ireland where to buy cytotec over the counter buy antabuse online australia. Buy tretinoin 1.0 requip medication class buy antabuse canada buy genuine proscar buy proscar usa requip medication dosage. Proscar to buy buy proscar australia can you buy antabuse over the counter buy proscar merck buy antabuse online buy generic proscar uk requip parkinson medication. Buy tretinoin micro gel where to buy antabuse in australia buy tretinoin 0.05 requip parkinsons medications online prescription for antabuse. Over the counter flagyl cream buy tretinoin 0.5 where to buy tretinoin gel antabuse in ireland antabuse buy online antabuse buy online uk medication requip used. where can i buy antabuse online Kamagra jelly bestellen belgie buy proscar in uk generic antabuse online buying proscar in the uk. Buy solage mequinol tretinoin buy tretinoin in the uk Buy viagra in perth australia buy proscar tablets requip medication generic generic antabuse cost generic antabuse online. Buy proscar 5mg buy tretinoin 0.1 requip medication guide where to buy antabuse in canada buy inderal australia buy antabuse in australia tretinoin to buy. Where to buy real cytotec buy tretinoin 0.025 cream requip medication coupon antabuse price australia buy proscar in australia antabuse generic price. Buy proscar 1mg buy antabuse online usa antabuse generic price where to buy proscar in canada where can i buy tretinoin gel in australia. Buy tretinoin gel canada flagyl cream online buy proscar canada where to buy tretinoin gel 0.1 antabuse generic name buy antabuse australia antabuse cost uk antabuse generic. Where to buy cytotec online in australia buy proscar for hair loss antabuse price us flagyl cream for bv where to buy original cytotec in quiapo. Antabuse online prescription buy antabuse online australia antabuse prescription online antabuse buy online ireland buy mequinol tretinoin.

  • Antabus in Reno
  • Antabus in Laredo
  • Antabus in Cranbrook
  • Antabus in Buffalo
  • Antabus in Lismore
  • Antabus in Aurora

Buy finpecia in the uk low cost viagra uk buy valtrex cheap cheapest antabuse online purchase orlistat 120mg cheap antabuse online. Antabuse tablets uk can you buy zovirax over the counter in australia antabuse australia cost most common dosage of cialis. Common dosage for cialis antabuse implant available uk finpecia uk buy can you buy zovirax over the counter in the uk . Can you buy zovirax eye ointment over the counter antabuse implant uk price of viagra over the counter cost of viagra in uk can i buy zovirax online. Correct dosage of cialis valtrex buy valtrex buy cheap buy zovirax ointment online how much does viagra cost uk buy valtrex 500mg purchase orlistat uk can you buy antabuse online. Buy valtrex online antabuse for sale uk how much viagra cost uk can you buy zovirax cream over the counter buy zovirax ointment how much cost viagra in uk. Buy valtrex online canada best place to buy finpecia uk buy valtrex online usa antabuse price uk Where to buy kamagra in perth. Orlistat for purchase common dosage of cialis cialis canada dose lowest dose of cialis where to buy finpecia in uk buy valtrex online australia. Orlistat online purchase how much should viagra cost uk antabuse patient uk cialis dose vs viagra cost of generic antabuse. Where can i buy kamagra gel buy zovirax cold sore cream online how can i purchase orlistat from uk antabuse in the uk can u buy zovirax cream over the counter. Viagra generic lowest price antabuse uk online where to buy zovirax online antabuse uk buy antabuse dosage uk. Viagra private prescription cost uk dosage for liquid cialis buy online zovirax proper dosage for liquid cialis. Purchase orlistat online where to buy antabuse in canada buy acyclovir zovirax how much does viagra cost in uk.

  • can you order antabuse online
  • buy antabuse uk
  • where can i buy antabuse online

Buy cheap viagra pills | Can you get buspar in australia | Buy tetracycline online uk | Pharmacy technician online schools canada | Wo am besten cialis generika kaufen | Lisinopril price no insurance

Levitra prices in canada where to buy antabuse in uk zovirax ointment price usa order clomid overnight zovirax cream best price generic levitra from canada. 100 mg antabuse antabuse where to buy antabuse dispergettes 400mg viagra generika kaufen nachnahme how much does levitra cost in canada. Viagra generika kaufen at antabuse tablets 500mg viagra generika auf rechnung kaufen viagra generika kaufen apotheke antabuse tablets to buy antabuse tablets 200mg information. Zovirax cream price canada zovirax price us antabuse buy online uk brand levitra canada where can i buy viagra in birmingham zovirax cream 30g price antabuse disulfiram buy. Levitra canada drugs buy clomid free shipping cost of levitra in canada cheapest levitra canada antabuse dose range buy levitra from canada antabuse to buy online. Viagra generika kaufen ├╝berweisung zovirax usa price where to buy viagra in nz buy levitra canada buy viagra birmingham. Clomid online overnight delivery levitra 20 mg canada generic levitra canada viagra generika kaufen bankeinzug viagra generika kaufen per nachnahme. Antabuse medication buy antabuse online usa zovirax cost australia disulfiram antabuse dosage levitra bayer canada levitra generic canada viagra generika kaufen billig. Antabuse to buy uk clomid online fast shipping prescription zovirax cream price cost of zovirax in usa antabuse medication dosage. Viagra generika indien kaufen normal dose antabuse zovirax cost usa viagra generika kaufen in der schweiz. Tab augmentin 625 price can u buy viagra over counter 125 mg antabuse antabuse maximum dosage buy clomid overnight levitra cost canada. Antabuse loading dose where to buy antabuse pills levitra cost in canada levitra over the counter canada antabuse buy online australia buy viagra in birmingham. Is strattera sold over the counter clomid uk delivery antabuse online uk buy viagra generika mit rezept kaufen. Viagra buy in nz levitra online pharmacy canada buy keyword qoclick com viagra levitra canada price viagra generika kaufen mit ├╝berweisung. Price for zovirax cream antabuse dosage guidelines levitra canada pharmacy buy antabuse 500mg wo kann ich viagra generika kaufen. Can you buy antabuse over the counter in uk brand levitra canada zovirax price ireland antabuse starting dose buy cheap antabuse.

  1. longs drug store kauai hawaii
  2. longs drug store kihei hawaii
  3. drug store in honolulu
  4. mail order antabuse
  5. buy antabuse australia
  6. drug store waikiki hawaii
  7. antabuse order online

< Norvasc pfizer coupon :: Drugstore online canada >

October 31, 2014

Coping With The Party Boycott

An occasionally encountered problem in international commercial arbitration is the Party Boycott. I will use that term here to refer to the situation where a Respondent in a pending arbitration registers its objection to arbitral jurisdiction systematically through a two-pronged strategy: (1) seeking an anti-arbitration injunction in a friendly court, and (2) refusing any participation in the arbitration itself.

Formation of the Tribunal

When the Tribunal is to be formed according to a list procedure by the administering institution, the Boycotting Party’s refusal to strike-and-rank the listed candidates typically entails that the institution will select the arbitrator or arbitrators. (As a preliminary matter the Boycotter may well argue to the institution that the arbitration should not proceed, but if the institution is satisfied prima facie of the existence of an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration administered by that institution, this effort ordinarily should fail). In the strike-and-rank scenario, the Boycotter succeeds in depriving the Claimant of input into the selection of the Tribunal. If the parties’ agreement provides for party-appointed arbitrators, then the Boycotter’s refusal to appoint entails that the appointing authority will make an appointment the Boycotter’s co-arbitrator, and that the Claimant’s party appointee and the co-arbitrator who has been administratively appointed will seek to reach agreement on a chair. Two of the three members of the Tribunal have been selected without input from the Boycotter.

Boycotter Requests Stay of the Arbitration

Invited to join a conference call to discuss a procedural timetable, the Boycotter may decline to confirm a date for such a proceeding, object to its “unilateral” scheduling, and request the Tribunal to stay proceedings at least for a time sufficient to allow the Boycotter to apply to a friendly court for an anti-arbitration injunction. The Boycotter proposes to invoke judicial authority of a court that is not at the seat of the arbitration, and whose arbitral procedural law does not apply to the arbitration. The Boycotter might for instance assert that it is a company in liquidation and that the liquidation court’s jurisdiction ousts that of the arbitral tribunal.  Whatever may be the merit, or lack of it, of that contention, from the perspective of arbitration procedure the question of the effect of the liquidation on arbitral jurisdiction should be addressed by the Tribunal and/or by a court at the seat of the arbitration unless the arbitration law of the seat, exceptionally, were to recognize the competence of the liquidation court to decide the issue.

Ordinarily, therefore, a motion to stay the arbitration in deference to a prospective jurisdiction-related decision from a court lacking competence on the jurisdiction issue ought to be denied.

Procedural Timetable and Time Limits for the Award

The first procedural conference is convened by telephone, with only the Claimant’s counsel appearing, the Boycotter and its litigation counsel (who requested the stay) having been duly notified. If the Claimant consents to bear the cost for a transcript, a court reporter records the proceedings, and Boycotter’s litigation counsel receives a copy.

Suppose a provision in the arbitration agreement requires a final award within a very stringent time limit measured from the formation of the Tribunal? Claimant cannot reasonably prepare complete written submissions on the merits and appear at a hearing within the time limit. Of course Claimant is willing to extend the time limit. But the Boycotter’s actual consent is not obtainable due to the Boycott, and neither the Tribunal nor the Claimant relishes the prospect that an Award made after the deadline might be denied enforcement on the ground that the Tribunal became functus officio at the time limit.

One solution is for the Tribunal to construe the time limit provision in the form of an Interim Award, deciding the issue of whether strict compliance with the time limit is required. If the Tribunal decides that strict compliance is not required, and the Boycotter has declined to take a position in the proceedings on this question, the Boycotter may find it difficult later on to deny the effectiveness of a Final Award on the basis that the time limit should be enforced strictly and the Tribunal ceased to have power before the Final Award was delivered.

Boycotter Obtains Anti-Arbitration Injunction From Friendly Court

The liquidation court in Boycotter’s home jurisdiction (not the arbitral seat) finds for the Boycotter on its application to enjoin the arbitration. The order operates in personam against Claimant, directing Claimant to proceed no further with the arbitration save to ask the Tribunal to stay the proceedings while Claimant pursues appellate remedies to vacate the injunction.

Now the arbitration is at a crossroads, and several factors are in play:

1) The Claimant submits to the Tribunal that while it disagrees with the injunction on the merits and as the Boycotter-friendly non-seat court’s power to impose it, the Claimant is loathe to risk a contempt judgment and therefore seeks to proceed no further with the arbitration on the merits until it can secure an order vacating the injunction.

2) A court with no supervisory power over the arbitration derived from the arbitration agreement or any national arbitration law has determined in an impactful way — via its own contempt powers exercisable over the Claimant — the competence of the Arbitral Tribunal,

3) Claimant assuredly would ask the Tribunal to rule on the jurisdiction issue were it not constrained by the injunction and by the fear of contempt penalties,

4) If the Tribunal accedes to Claimant’s request for a stay, without doing anything more, it gives legitimacy to the illegitimate (even if it were substantively correct) injunction of the liquidation court, in effect allowing contempt powers to trump all applicable arbitration rules and law.

5) Yet if the Tribunal insists that the case go forward — on the agreed accelerated timetable — it forces Claimant to a difficult  election: risk contempt penalties and trust in the appellate process to reverse the injunction and the contempt, violate the Tribunal’s order to proceed, or withdraw the arbitration.

Shall The Tribunal Retreat Into Cold Storage?

What is a Tribunal to do? In the case that inspires this post, the Tribunal (seated in London) elected to make an award on the issue of whether the liquidation proceeding divested the arbitral tribunal of jurisdiction. Having in the first procedural order directed both parties to provide copies to the Tribunal of all submissions made the Boycotter-friendly non-seat court relating to the arbitration, and all orders of that court relating to the arbitration, the Tribunal was fortunate to secure Claimant’s compliance with that direction notwithstanding the anti-arbitration injunction.

Armed with the same factual and legal record made by the parties in the liquidation court, the fact that Respondent and Claimant were for different reasons (derived from the same injunction) unwilling to brief the issue to the Tribunal was not seen as a deterrent to a decision. The Tribunal proceeded to a Partial Award finding that its jurisdiction was intact. And having given that award, the Tribunal rather than grant the Claimant’s request for a stay, instead amended the procedural timetable to defer the merits hearing and pre-hearing submissions for a time sufficient for Claimant to pursue a first-level appeal against the injunction.

The Tribunal in such circumstances is rightfully uneasy at the prospect of granting either a proceedings stay of indefinite duration, or, what would eventually amount to the same thing, seriatim adjustments of the hearing timetable as each previously-fixed set of submission and hearing dates approaches and the illegitimate judicial anti-arbitration injunction remains in force while appellate challenge proceeds at a pace that seems to reflect the appellate court’s indifference to the Tribunal’s desire to proceed on the timetable it has established.

It would seem that a decent respect for the arbitration law that the Tribunal has a mandate to apply should bring into play a self-imposed obligation of the Tribunal to express in every appropriate way its refusal to be governed by the illegitimate injunction. But to insist that the enjoined Claimant defy the injunction and risk contempt of the enjoining court seems untenable: It would be an abuse of arbitral power to insist that a party bear this risk or, if it should refuse to bear it, have its claim determined against it on the merits based on its refusal to proceed with the hearing.

The solution decided upon in the case that inspires this post was for the Tribunal to end is mandate without reaching the merits. Claimant was not put to the choice of proceeding to the merits or not, but instead was given the choice of proceeding to the merits or withdrawing the arbitration without prejudice. The Claimant’s claim and its right to arbitrate that claim were preserved.

It will not be in every case where the Claimant desires a stay pending judicial appeals of the injunction that the Tribunal would opt for this solution. But the judgment made here was that the mission of an Arbitral Tribunal is to render an Award resolving the disputes presented by the parties, and if it has no reasonable prospect of being able to do so on a reasonable time horizon because of a judicial injunction that the Tribunal has determined to be procedurally and substantively illegitimate, then discontinuing the arbitration without impairment of the Claimant’s right to arbitrate the claim in a newly-filed case may usefully address several concerns. Already mentioned is the systemic reason: that the Tribunal should not be seen to be under the thumb of a judiciary that has no legitimate authority to supervise or regulate the arbitration. Another reason is that if the injunction is eventually dissolved, the arbitration should proceed as closely as possible as it would have proceeded had the injunction not be issued. The seated Tribunal cannot help but have been influenced, and certainly will be seen to have been influenced, unfavorably to the Boyoctter.  A new Tribunal should in principle have no such disposition, and, of course, if the agreement to arbitrate provides for party-appointees, and the appointees’ participation in selecting the chair, a Tribunal constituted with the full voluntary participation of both parties is desirable. An Award rendered by such a new Tribunal should face a smoother path to enforcement if it must be presented for enforcement in the courts of the same State that provided the injunction. Termination of the proceedings also eliminates the possibility that the fact of the pendency of the arbitration serves some secondary business purpose for the Claimant, making the Tribunal an unwitting facilitator. That is an inevitable by-product when a case is proceeding along a normal course, but is better avoided if the Tribunal cannot accomplish its core mission. Further, the monitoring of the judicial proceedings may affect the Tribunal’s disposition toward the Claimant and its counsel, as the Tribunal makes its own private assessments of the efficacy Claimant’s efforts to have the injunction lifted.

Of course there can be countervailing factors that militate in favor of the Tribunal being more patient in awaiting possible rectification in the enjoining State’s courts. One would be if the Tribunal has worked on the merits at significant cost to the parties before the anti-arbitration injunction is obtained. But it will be more usual that the Boycotting Party will invoke judicial authority early in the case, and that the Tribunal will not invest much time.

* * *

One potential avenue of recourse for the Claimant aggrieved by the Boycott is to seat an anti-suit injunction against the Boycotter. For a reminder that where UK arbitration law applies, a UK court may enjoin foreign litigation that would interfere with the arbitration, seeAntisuit injunctions: No arbitration? No worries” from the International Arbitration Newsletter of DLA Piper, 26 September 2013 (www.dlapiper.com/en/japan/insights/publications/2013/09/antisuit-injunctions-no-arbitration-no-worries).

Query how shall a Tribunal when asked by the enjoined Claimant for a stay of indefinite duration, pending appeals of the illegitimate injunction, take into account that party’s failure at an early stage to have availed itself of this opportunity in a UK court to enjoin the adverse party from pursuing an anti-arbitration injunction?


Query also, if the Tribunal makes a Partial Award in favor of its own jurisdiction, how shall the Tribunal take into account, when asked by the enjoined Claimant for an indefinite stay, the fact that the Claimant undertakes no proceedings for enforcement of that Award?  Is it a satisfactory answer that pursuing a proceeding for enforcement of the Award might motivate the Boycotter to apply for contempt sanctions?


Also, what degree of proof shall a Tribunal require that the enjoined Claimant will be subjected to a contempt sanction if it takes particular steps in the arbitration or related to the arbitration (such as award-enforcement or anti-suit injunction proceedings in a court at the seat)? Shall the Tribunal require some proof as to the severity of the potential sanction, the likelihood of its imposition, and its irreversibility even if the injunction is ultimately declared to have been unlawful? Not to be overlooked in this regard is the possibility for the Tribunal as a provisional measure to direct the Boycotter to refrain from taking contempt proceedings, as was done in the well-known SGS v Pakistan ICSID arbitration. (See E. Gaillard, Reflections on the Use of Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration, in L. Mistelis & J. Lew eds., Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration, pp. 203 et seq at p. 205 n.6 (2006)). But such an order against a non-State party in commercial arbitration may be toothless unless it can be enforced judicially in a jurisdiction where the Boycotter has assets.