Return
C O N T E N T S1. ICC international court of arbitration: the explanation
2. outline of the writer's business; importing of machinery and the problem
3. background of the issue
4. beginning of the issue Second stage of the incident: involvement of Nishijima
6. Payment problem with Nishijima concerns Mitsubishi Bank and Tax
7. Selection of solution approaches
8. Standard ICC arbitration clause: contract design No.1 as recommended by ICC
9. Costs of ICC arbitration in 1990
10. What is ICC arbitration court? Appendix-5
11. Request for ICC arbitration
12. Jurisdiction over New Ursviken; Plan 1
13. Arbitrator prepares terms of reference
14. Terms of reference See Article 9.1.4-h. + Appendix-4 (p.828).
15. New Ursviken, Mr. Lars Landmark contended against the claimant's statement
16. Contact with Arbitrator in Tokyo On 1993 Feb. 9th, WATANABE met Dr.Guntram.Rahn ,-German lawyer,-Arbitrator
17. Visit to ICC court headquarters in Paris, 1993 Feb. 15th
18. Selection of a lawyer at Swedish law
19. Plural lawyers and cheer-group of the writer's
20. [special] Jurisdiction over New Ursviken; Plan 2
21. [special] Additionals to 20.2.
22. A study around Mr. Greger Lundmark: chairman, receiver & lawyer of UMV
23. A study around Mr. Samme Lindmark
24. Mr. Samme Lindmark and Mr. WATANABE
25. Illustration of relevant human relation in dispute
26. 1993 Feb. 23rd, Mr. Jarvin's opinion on disclosure of assets deal
27. 1993 Feb. 3rd, Mr. Jarvin, WATANABE's consultant or counsel?
27. special How to deal with his lawyer
28. To organize measures for jurisdictional vindication No.1
29. Whether Mr. Greger Lundmark can be liable as individual.
30. Measures for jurisdictional vindication No.2
30. -special-5 Assets deal and Discovery
30. -special-6-4 Piercing or bridging
30. -special-6-5 Samme's behavior has a look of Hot-purchase
31. What was done between Feb. 22nd and April 14th 1993
32. Action No.2; collecting information on New Ursviken by the writer and Mr. Jarvin.
33. The assets deal concluded between Receiver and Karolin Investment is disclosed.
34. Arbitrator's request dated Sept. 20th 1993 for respective parties'comments
35. Two kinds of arguments of ours on jurisdiction as follows:
36. Memorandum Oct. 8th 1993.
37. Statement No.3 Nov. 25th 1993
38. Chronological time table of proceedings from the ICC application to a little ahead
39. New UMV Mr. Lars Landmark's replies to the arbitrator, as Article
40. WATANABE's rebuttal Dec. 20th 1993
41. WATANABE's Dec. 20th second letter on doubts on machines' list
42. WATANABE's rebuttal Jan. 20th 1994 against the contract cancellationletters
43. Succession of Arbitration clause the claimant's letter dated Feb. 18th 1994
44 [special] Delay of tribunal proceedings.
45. Prof. Dr. Torgny Hastad to be Swedish law expert proposed by Arbitrator
46. Claimant's comments, in his March letters,on Arbitrator's demand
47. Challenge of Dr. Hastad
48. The acceptance of the challenge by Arbitrator in his letter
49. Claimant's petition dated Oct. 8th 1994 to relinquish a Swedish law expert
50. Memorandum No.2 including a matter ofdated July 12th 1994 prepared by Mr. Jarvin
51. Terms of reference for expertise drafted by Arbitrator for comments of the parties
52. Claimant's comments on the terms of reference for modification of some clauses
53. Arbitrator's reply dated Sept. 23rd to claimant's comment
54. Claimant's petition to Arbitrator regarding Swedish law expertise
55. Arbitrator's letter dated Nov. 3rd 1994, rejecting the modificationof
56. No endorsement by claimant to the terms of reference prepared by claimant
57. Swedish law expertise of Dr. Lindskog's was delivered Feb. 6th 1995
58. The claimant's comment Feb. 23rd 1995, on Dr. Lindskog's draft of his view
59. The defendant's comment March 3rd 1995, on Dr. Lindskog's draft of his views
60. Arbitrator's request to the expert dated March 28th 1995
61..-special On drafting of Statement No.4 by the writer
62. Dr. Lindskog(=Swedish law expert)'s formal opinion dated April 6th
63. On whether an agreement to arbitrate automatically travels with the assigned contract: 4 factors finding the position
64. Statement No.4 dated April 3rd 1995 with four pieces of Addenda
65. The defendant's comment dated May 30th posted June 1st 1995
66. Addendum No.5 March 7th 1996 to Statement No.4
67.[special] Scrutiny of award draft by ICC Plenary Session, with secretaryin charge
68. Award on jurisdiction June 3rd 1996
69. Claimant's submission to Arbitrator for discovery between UMV and Nishijima
70. Arbitrator's commencement of procedural calendar on merit
71. Discovery petition Protocol is ignored.
72. Statement No.5, July 25th 1996, replacement with new machine- Claim choice No.2
73. Statement No.5 addendum No.1 Sept. 19th 1996
74. Arbitrator's instruction,Further pleading and comments
75. Statement No.5 addendum No.2, Gross misconduct, oct. 28th 1996(1st letter)
76. Statement No.6, Oct. 28th (2nd letter)
77. Statement No.9 on money claim, Nov. 13th 1996
78. Statement No.7; Claim choice No.1, order cancellation, Nov. 15th1996
79. Statement No.8; Claim choice No.3, restoration by New UMV, suggested by Jarvin
80. Claimant's contention against UMV's new counsel,Mr. Sｏderlund's allegation
81. Defendant No.2 added a new counsel - Mr. Sｏderlund
82. Claimant vs. Sｏderlund
83. Visit to ICC Secretary general in Paris“Fiddler on the court" will sell.
84. Conversation between the claimant and secretariat, Feb. 24th & 25th
1997 1) to 7), 3)4)Fernando says, “WATANABE's arguments are no
good. Writing a book is terrible!"
85. Submission of July 4th 1996 for UMV and Nishijima protocol dated
Jan. 11th 1990, the receipt of which was found remained unconfir
med by Arbitrator
86. Mr. J. Clifford's idea of how to cope with the terms of reference87. Claimant's letter dated March 13th 1997 to Secretary general
88. Witness of Thomas Berglund dated March 15th 1997
89. Claimant's contest dated March 18th 1997 against Berglund's witness
90. March 24th 1997, 2nd letter of contest against Mr. Sｏderlund's allegation
91. Tribunal proceedings, picture (Sept. 14th 1996 to August 20th 1997)
92. May 8th 1997 letter of claimant to Secretary general for a good
scrutiny on the award draft because of the terms of reference
93. Estimates on the final award
By Mr.Jarvin, lawyer Mr.C, the writer Mr. Kohmoto, and Mr.J.Clifford
94. Final award
95.Comments on the award
96.Post Script
97. Dialogue between Mr. Jarvin and WATANABE on Oct. 27th 1997
98. -special a+b+c Corruption of organization
99. The writer's summary views for all
a) a giant chameleon
b) Chinese historian, Si Ma Qian, and his emperor, BC90Appendix Appendix-1 Delays of tribunal proceedings
Appendix-1-2+1-2[special] What makes Arbitrator to delay
Appendix-1-3② Chronological table of Arbitrator's correspondences
Appendix-1-3③ Consultant ignores letter of July 25 and 28th 1994 for a
feasibility of Arbitrator challenge
Appendix-1-3⑧-special The writer's observations on ICC; Feb. 23rd + 26th
'96 letters to ICC
Appendix-1-4[special] Icc secretary in charge, Mr Fernando Mantilla-serrano
Incident No.1-an eeriness with ICC : Fernando + Jarvin vs. WATANABE
Whether a secretariat can close an ICC case by himself Attached Text …646
Appendix-1-5 Incident No.2: Further delays.
See respective articles for the abbreviated.
Appendix-1-5-10 ICC chairman Mr. Alain Plantey ignores our letter of demand
Appendix-1-6-4 Five pieces of correspondences between Jarvin and Mr. Schwartz
Appendix-1-6-5
⑧ An eery thing: Parties may incur additional charges by replacement
⑨[special] 1) & 2) Challenge and replacement of Arbitrator
⑩ Money matter with Jarvin
Appendix-1-6-5-special
a) demerits of ex-ICC man for lawyer
b) merits of ditto
Appendix-1-6-8
WATANABE's visit to ICC secretary general, Mr. Eric Schwartz Feb.20th'96
Appendix-1-6-8-special-1
a) WATANABE's letter Feb. 23rd '96, complaints on ICC administrations
b) WATANABE's Feb. 26th, Paris District Court & Fraudulent Conveyance
Appendix-1-6-8-special-2 ICC's reply Feb. 27th
Appendix-1-6-8-special-3
WATANABE's reply Feb. 29th '96; where is the primary & initial…………691
jurisdiction, Paris district court or ICC?
Appendix-1-6-8-special-4 Writing of this book
Appendix-1-6-9 A meeting with Dr. Rahn March 6th '96 in Tokyo
Appendix-1-6-10-special ①
ICC tried to acquire the claimant's agreement on Arbitrator's replacement.
Appendix-1-6-10-special ②
Dr's ingenuity, Pizza-deliveryman's excuse etc.
Appendix-1-6-11
Award draft on jurisdiction submitted April 24th '96 for ICC scrutiny.
Appendix-1-6-special
Gross delay is usual with ICC See Appendix-5.
Appendix-1-7-special
outline of proceedings from Sept.14th 1996 to May 1st 1997
Appendix-1-7
Claimant's submission,Sept. 14th 1996 to push arbitrator toroll the tribunal
Appendix-1-8 Arbitrator sets time-limit of submission.
Appendix-1-9
Claimant's submission,Nov. 28th 1996
The situation is matured.
Appendix-1-10
Secretariat to arbitrator,Dec.11th 1996
Secretariat urges arbitrator to do a job.
Appendix-1-11
Arbitrator to secretariat Dec.13th 1996
By Feb.28 1997,the award draft is planned to submit.
Appendix-1-12
June 23rd 1997,claimant asks arbitrator when he intends to close submission.
Appendix-1-13
Arbitrator notices to all the parties on
Feb.18th 1997 to submit if any, By Feb.25th 1997.
Appendix-1-14
WATANABE's visit to Mr.Horacio G.Naon, Feb. 24th 1997
for having a good scrutiny on the draft.
Appendix-1-15
Claimant's letter to Secretary General March 13th 1997 for a fair scrutiny.
Appendix-1-16
March 17th 1997, claimant to secretary in charge, Fernando,
question whether everything is in order?Appendix-1-17
Fernando to claimant,March 17th 1997
He tends to trust arbitrator still.
Appendix-1-18 Fernando is betrayed again,and much frustrated.
Appendix-1-19
April 7th 1997, another letter was written to Secretary General to the same effect.
Appendix-1-20
Secretary General is in another overseas journey.
Appendix-1-21
April 14th 1997, Mr.Jarvin writes a letter of much the same effect
to Secretary General.
Appendix-1-22
May 1st 1997, claimant to secretary whether award draft has arrived.
Appendix-1-23 April 30th 1997, secretarat to arbitrator.
Appendix-1-23-special Fernando is in an exterme anger to Dr.Rahn.
Appendix-1-24
The award draft arrived and will be scrutinized at plenary
session at the end of June 1997.
Appendix-1-25 Claimant's request to ICC to account for the delay
Appendix-1-26
Secretary General says on August 20th 1997, "The proceedings hav
ebeen done quite orderly in line with ICC rule."
Appendix-2 Partial file of evidences
Appendix-2-1 a UMV to WATANABE. 1st cancellation letter, Sept.29th
Appendix-2-1 b UMV to WATANABE. 2nd cancellation letter, Oct.19th '88
Appendix-2-1 c WATANABE to UMV. Cancellation denial, Dec. 6th '88
Appendix-2-2 List of clients vs. delivered machines
Appendix-2-3 UN general conditions-UN 188
Appendix-2-4 July 5th '89 Protocol;WATANABE,Nishijima and UMV
Appendix-2-5 a Nishijima's lawyer,Yamada's warning to WATANABE, Jan.19th '90
Appendix-2-5 b UMV's lawyer,Toyama's claims, March 6th '90
Appendix-2-6 WATANABE's lawyer,Takeshita's rebuttal March 22nd '90
Appendix-2-7 Witness by taxi company, April 10th '92
Appendix-2-8 a WATANABE's asking to Mr.Samme Lindmark, Jan.19th '90
Appendix-2-8 b Refusal by Mr.Samme Lindmark, Jan.22nd '90
Appendix-2-8 c Samme's letter,Dec.22nd '88
Appendix-2-9 a Fax.Nishijima-UMV-WATANABE to release Thomas, Jan.19th '90
Appendix-2-9 b Description of the then situation, Jan.17th to 20th '90
Appendix-2-10 a Lars to Rahn Jun.25 '93
Appendix-2-10 b A protocol Aug.31 '90.Nishijima vs.UMV
Appendix-2-11 a
Jarvin to WATANABE,Jun.26. '97 ICC confidentiality not on the parties
Appendix-2-11 b
Jarvin to WATANABE March 24 '93, Jarvin's evaluation on the case.
2-11b: transferred to appendix-2-27
Appendix-2-12 UMV to ICC, March 12 '92; New UMV purchased only tangibles
Appendix-2-13 a B.Lindgren to WATANABE; UMV's lawyer in Japan is Mr.Toyama.
Appendix-2-13 b Berglund's refusal to be witness for WATANABE
Appendix-2-13 c Related papers with 2-13,b
Appendix-2-14 UMV to WATANABE, Jan.24th '91,no renewal of the contract
Appendix-2-15 a G.Lundmark to ICC, Jan.13th '92
Appendix-2-15 b B.Lindgren to ICC Jan.13th '92
Appendix-2-15 c Explanation on 15a+15b.
Appendix-2-16
UMV chairman,G.Lundmark to WATANABE, March 30th '89.
Compensation to WATANABE for Murata introductions.
Appendix-2-17 Jim Clifford to WATANABE,Feb.21,'95-fraudulent conveyance
Appendix-2-18 a
New Arbitrator for additinonal fees? WATANABE to ICC. April 4th '96
Appendix-2-18 b ICC Fernando to WATANABE,April 4th '96
Appendix-2-18 c ICC rule Article 9
Appendix-2-19
WATANABE to Arbitrator or April 7th 1994
Incomplete machines and Short-shipment-inspections
Appendix-2-20 Receiver appointment by Torgny Johansson
Appendix-2-21
Sumida Summary Court,Oct.6th 1992 WATANABE vs. Nishijima
Appendix-2-22 WATANABE to UMV,Dec.11th 1989, poor machining on Bed EKP250
Appendix-2-23 Fax.WATANABE to UMV,Jan.19th 1990 for repair
Appendix-2-24
Nishijima's payment guarantee to Mitsubishi Bank for L/C opening
by WATANABE jointly
Appendix-2-25 WATANABE to ICC on Jan.23rd '92 for Prima facie
Appendix-2-26
WATANABE to Arbitrator,May 20th '93
Product liability remains with WATANABE
Appendix-2-27 Jarvin to WATANABE. March 24th '93
Appendix-3 Interim award on jurisdiction on June 3rd '96
Appendix-4 Terms of referenceAppendix-4-0
(a)statement No.1 dated Aug. 23rd '91 for initiation of the case applications,
(b) and on June 22nd '92－the final modification
Appendix-4-1 ICC rule Aricle 13+16+8
Appendix-4-2 Terms of reference prepared by Arbitrator on June 22nd '92
Appendix-5-1 "an inside view of the ICC court" by Robert H.Smit
Appendix-5-1a Scrutiny of award
Appendix-5-1b Length of proceeding: over 3 years 15%
Appendix-5-2 Comments by WATANABE on “the inside view of ICC"
Appendix-6 Post Script: Appeal to a Swedish criminal court
Appendix-6-1 Consultant's view, negative to WATANABE's question
Appendix-6-2 WATANABE's contention
Appendix-6-3 Consultant's reply to WATANABE's contention is assured to come
in the following week.
Appendix-6-4 Instead what arrived is a list of outstanding bills
Appendix-7 Brief directory of persons and corporations
Return