brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita

and de Gramont divulged this confidential client information even though Mr Parada
had told them of his close and long-standing professional ties to the Salvadoran
Government; Mr Parada further testified that Mr Ali told him that he (Mr Ali) had
met the week before with President Saca to inform the President that Mr Ali's client
intended to initiate arbitration against the Respondent under CAFTA; however, as
Mr Parada testified, he (Mr Parada) had concluded that the true purpose of the interview
was that Crowell & Moring wanted Mr Parada to inform the Respondent of
Mr Ali‟s plans; and, notwithstanding Mr Parada's “conclusion” about the real reason
for the interview, Mr Parada also testified that Messrs. Ali and de Gramont “invited”
him to join Crowell & Moring's international arbitration practice, even as
they were planning to commence an ICSID arbitration against the Respondent and
even though Mr Parada had told them that he “would be extremely uncomfortable
working on an ICSID arbitration against El Salvador”.
6.25. The Claimant submits that any counsel appearing before this Tribunal (as counsel
or as a witness) has an obligation to make sure that his assertions, especially assertions
of such a serious nature, have a basic foundation. According to the Claimant,
the modus operandi of the Respondent has been to suggest or insinuate wrongdoing
on the part of the Claimant without any regard for whether such suggestions
have any foundation at all. The Respondent retained its own counsel (Dewey & Le-
Boeuf) by April 2009 at the latest, so that the Respondent had more than two years
to confirm the foundations for its several allegations; but the Respondent significantly
failed to do so.
6.26. The Claimant concludes that, if the Tribunal were again in its jurisdictional decision
to decline to allocate costs against the Respondent following this second phase of
objections (as it did with its Decision of 2 August 2010 following the first phase),
the Respondent will have been well rewarded for its misconduct; and the Respondent
will have succeeded (again) in delaying the merits phase of this arbitration
and in imposing yet more expense on the Claimant, with its limited resources.
Moreover, so the Claimant further concludes, a decision by the Tribunal
not to order costs against the Respondent will ensure that the Respondent will
continue such misconduct as this arbitration proceeds to the merits; and it would
strongly encourage other miscreant parties to engage in the same misconduct in fu-
Part 6 - Page 8