ŔÖĚěĚĂappĎÂÔŘ

The Respondent.Ěý5. Ms Xxx is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (“ICAEWâ€�). 6. Ms Xxx qualified as a Chartered Accountant in September 2007. At all material times she was employed by the audit firm as a senior manager.

The Respondent.Ěý2, 1. FC Köln, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned compensation.

The Respondent.ĚýThe Respondent is the United Mexican States (Mexico or Government). While Mexico will act in these proceedings through the authority designated by it, a copy of this Request for Arbitration has been served on the following officials: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Director General de InversiĂłn Extranjera DirecciĂłn General de InversiĂłn Extranjera SecretarĂ­a de EconomĂ­a Avenida de los Insurgentes Sur 1940 Colonia La Florida Ciudad de MĂ©xico C.P. 01030 Estados Unidos Mexicanos Lic. Xxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Director General SecretarĂ­a de EconomĂ­a DirecciĂłn General de ConsultorĂ­a JurĂ­dica de Comercio Internacional Paseo de la Reforma 296, Col. Xxxxxx, Xxx. Xxxxxxxxxx, Ciudad de MĂ©xico C.P. 06600 Estados Unidos Mexicanos Hon. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx xx Rosenzwig Mendialdua Subsecretario de Comercio Exterior SubsecretarĂ­a de Comercio Exterior SecretarĂ­a de EconomĂ­a Paseo de la Reforma 296, Col. Xxxxxx, Xxx. Xxxxxxxxxx, Ciudad de MĂ©xico C.P. 06600 Estados Unidos Mexicanos

The RespondentĚýs Lucky Play logo which brands all the Respondent’s promotional material has the same colour scheme as the Supreme Ventures logo used by the Applicant in its marketing of Cash Pot;

The RespondentĚýhas cooperated fully with Staff during the course of the investigation, and by agreeing to this settlement, has avoided the need for a contested hearing on the merits. V. CONTRAVENTIONS

The Respondent.Ěý34. The Respondent’s submissions, in essence, may be summarized as follows: - In the Respondent’s view the three legal questions for analysis are: (1) whether Article 5 of the Termination Agreement is a â€�penalty clauseâ€�, (2) if it is, is it valid and is the amount specified therein due under the applicable Swiss law, and (3) if the clause is valid and the amount is due, is the latter subject to reduction for being excessive? - The Respondent considers that the DRC judges were correct in their analysis that Article 5 of the Termination Agreement was not intended to penalize the Player, but rather to give rise to an obligation that was already established in the underlying Contract, namely three monthly salaries; - The negotiations leading to the Termination Agreement made it clear that the Player would not give up amounts the he considered were owed to him under the Contract if the agreed-upon payment schedule was not respected, which resulted in the wording of Article 5. The amount payable thereunder was a condition sine qua non for the execution of the Termination Agreement; - The fact that at the time of conclusion of the Termination Agreement the Appellant had failed to pay the Respondent more than three monthsâ€� worth of salary meant that the Respondent had the right to terminate the Contract with just cause and claim the entire amount owed to him at the time (totaling twelve monthly salaries or EUR 156,000). Instead, he demonstrated good faith by agreeing to payment of three salaries or EUR 39,000 in the event of delayed payment; - The Appellant, having negotiated the clause in Article 5 of the Termination Agreement, is estopped from claiming that the clause is void according to the principle of venire contra factum proprium; - Finally, even if the clause is to be considered a penalty clause, it is still valid given its proportionate and reasonable amount under Swiss law and CAS case law; - Article 160 para. 2 SCO requires that performance be expressly accepted without reservation. The Appellant has failed to meet its burden of proof in this respect as it has not adduced any evidence supporting its allegation that the Respondent had accepted performance; - The amount is not subject to reduction for being excessive in light of its reasonable and proportionate nature well within the bounds of CAS case law. The relevant test being that the amount of a penalty clause needs to offend the sense of justice and equity to be deemed excessive, this is not the ca...

The Respondent.ĚýThe Respondent charged the Complainants similar commissions to a cash equivalent (i.e., GICs) and therefore did not enjoy nor was he motivated by additional profit to himself.

The Respondent.ĚýThe giving of a Notice of Default and allowing the period for cure of the alleged default in accordance with this Section 5.1 shall be a condition precedent to the Claimant exercising any available remedy in response to the alleged default, including, without limitation, initiation of informal dispute resolution pursuant to Section 5.2 herein. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to prohibit the Respondent from disputing that a default has occurred. Neither the giving of any Notice of Default, nor the initiation by the Claimant of any dispute resolution in connection with the alleged default, shall by itself operate to terminate this Agreement.

The Respondent.ĚýThe Respondent argues that in accordance with the plain language of the Treaty, an investor may submit a dispute to an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules only if arbitration under ICSID or the Additional Facility is not “available.â€� The Respondent invokes the Reinisch Legal Opinion9 to the effect that the interpretation of the Treaty is governed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the “Vienna Conventionâ€�), in particular its Article 31(1). The Respondent submits that supplementary means of interpretation are available under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention only if the ordinary meaning is ambiguous.