brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita

6.55. Accordingly, the Respondent contends that, whilst it was not required to make any
additional showing of bad faith once it had demonstrated the improper manipulation
of the Claimant‟s corporate form in order to gain jurisdiction under CAFTA, it has
nonetheless proved the Claimant‟s bad faith.
6.56. Sixth, the Respondent submits that Mr Parada's testimony only became necessary as
a result of the Claimant's own misconduct. According to the Respondent, Mr Parada
never imagined he would be a factual witness in this arbitration until August 2010
when the Claimant, in an effort to survive the Respondent‟s Abuse of Process objection,
wrongly alleged that no-one in the Claimant knew or could have known that
there was a dispute with the Respondent before reading the newspaper article on 11
March 2008 reporting President Saca‟s speech. The Respondent submits that, in fact,
Mr Parada‟s testimony (and all that has been associated with it) would have been
completely unnecessary if the Claimant had not raised this absurd allegation, or if
the Claimant in September 2010 had simply responded to the Respondent‟s questions
and admitted the true facts which it finally admitted much later in April 2011;
namely: the Claimant's retention of international arbitration counsel with regard to
the Respondent in October 2007 and such counsel's attendance with their client at a
lunch for President Saca in November 2007, before the Claimant's change of nationality
in December 2007.
6.57. The Respondent notes that the Claimant maintained that there was no dispute with
the Respondent before March 2008; that the Claimant asserted, “prior to March
2008, Claimant had no reason to believe that this temporary impasse would not be
resolved”; and that the report of President Saca's speech in March 2008 “was the
first time that Claimant believed that its legal rights under Salvadoran and international
law were being 'positively opposed' by El Salvador.” As a result of these assertions,
the Respondent included questions about the Claimant's counsel in its request
for documents and information, explaining that because “the August 17, 2010
letter denies that Pac Rim Cayman's change in nationality of December 2007 enabled
the company to begin CAFTA arbitration about a dispute that already existed,”
the “timing of the relationship between Pac Rim Cayman and its international arbitration
counsel” would be “relevant and material” to the Abuse of Process objection.
Part 6 - Page 18