The respondent, a Cayman Islands company, accused the claimant, a Chilean company, of breaching a shareholders agreement to which both were parties. The respondent sought the appointment of an independent analyst to determine the price of shares held by the claimant. The claimant objected to this evaluation and brought proceedings in a US court to prevent the analyst from publishing his report. The court granted the injunction pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings, which the claimant was required to initiate in accordance with the shareholders agreement. In the arbitration commenced in compliance with this order, the claimant requested the arbitral tribunal to find that it had not breached the shareholders agreement. The respondent requested the arbitral tribunal to issue an interim award authorizing the analyst to issue his price determination and report.

La défenderesse, une société des îles Caïmans, reprocha à la demanderesse, une société chilienne, d'avoir violé un pacte d'actionnaires à laquelle elles étaient toutes deux parties. La défenderesse demanda la nomination d'un analyste indépendant chargé de déterminer le prix des actions détenues par la demanderesse. La demanderesse s'opposa à cette évaluation et engagea une action devant le juge américain afin de faire interdire à l'analyste la publication de son rapport. Le juge accorda cette injonction en attendant l'issue d'une procédure d'arbitrage que la demanderesse fut sommée d'intenter conformément au pacte d'actionnaires. Dans l'arbitrage mise en œuvre dans le respect de cette injonction, la demanderesse sollicita du tribunal arbitral une décision affirmant qu'elle n'avait pas violé le pacte d'actionnaires. La défenderesse demanda au tribunal arbitral de rendre une sentence intérimaire autorisant l'analyste à procéder à la publication de son évaluation et de son rapport.

El demandado, una sociedad de las Islas Caimán, acusó al demandante, una sociedad chilena, de incumplir un acuerdo de accionistas en el que ambos eran partes. El demandado solicitó el nombramiento de un analista independiente para determinar el precio de las acciones poseídas por el demandante. El demandante formuló objeciones en relación con esta evaluación e inició un procedimiento en un tribunal de los Estados Unidos para impedir que el analista publicara su informe. El tribunal estimó la acción de cesación en espera del resultado final del procedimiento de arbitraje que el demandante se vio obligado a incoar con arreglo al acuerdo de accionistas. En el marco del arbitraje iniciado de conformidad con esta orden, el demandante solicitó al tribunal arbitral que comprobara que él no había incurrido en incumplimiento del acuerdo de accionistas. El demandado solicitó al tribunal arbitral que dictara un laudo provisional autorizando al analista a publicar su determinación de precios y su informe.

'85. It is undisputed that this arbitral tribunal has the power to grant interim relief as provided in Article 23(1) of the ICC Rules. However, before exercising its authority to grant the relief requested, the tribunal must satisfy itself that the standards of Article 23(1) have been met. In this respect, a party seeking interim relief must demonstrate urgency and irreparable harm and that no pre-judgement of the merits of the dispute is involved in order to warrant relief before a final award is granted.1

86. After carefully considering the parties' submissions, conducting a thorough hearing on the matter, and after due deliberation among the members of the tribunal, the tribunal has concluded that Respondent's request should be denied.

87. The tribunal and the parties are bound by the terms of Article 16 of the Shareholders Agreement. In the tribunal's opinion, there is no question that when one party decides that the other party has committed a material breach of the Shareholders Agreement, it may send a Notice of Default to the allegedly breaching party. This Notice triggers the immediate selection of the valuation expert by the shareholders, or the appointment of the valuation expert by the ICC Centre. Article 16.3 provides that once appointed, the independent analyst shall proceed to a determination of the price of [company I] shares and that the parties are bound by the analyst's determination; subject of course to the validity of the process.

88. However, Article 16 does not indicate when the price determination must be released to the parties. Therefore, if there is a dispute concerning the existence of a material breach of the contract, the tribunal may decide whether liability should appropriately be determined by the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Article 18 before the price determination is published.

89. [Claimant] disputes that it committed a material breach of the contract. [Claimant] thus filed a lawsuit in the [district court] to obtain a preliminary injunction against the independent analyst's imminent publication of his valuation report. In order to satisfy its burden for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [Claimant] had to prove that it would be irreparably harmed if the injunction were not granted.2 In issuing the preliminary injunction, the court determined that [Claimant] would indeed suffer irreparable harm if the valuation report were published.

90. The [district] court did not specify whether the injunction would survive a request for an interim award in a subsequent arbitration. The court simply ordered the independent analyst to cease and discontinue all aspects of the valuation, and not to provide to the parties or others any information, documents, correspondence or other materials related to the valuation "until this order is dissolved, the award in the arbitration provides for said valuation proceedings to continue, or the further order of this court". . . . Thus, it is unclear to the tribunal whether the court intended the injunction to remain in effect until a final award in this arbitration, or merely until the tribunal was constituted and rendered an award on interim measures.

91. After considering the arguments of the parties, the tribunal is not persuaded that there are new, different or changed conditions sufficient to justify reversal of the preliminary injunction issued by the court. Further, the Respondent has failed to convince the tribunal that there is any urgency for an order releasing the valuation report, or the existence of irreparable harm to it if the valuation report is not released. Respondent's contention that the report would aid the parties in considering whether to proceed to arbitration is not sufficient to override the irreparable harm determined by the [US] court to exist if the valuation report were to be published. Furthermore, the request' s lack of urgency is reflected by the fact that Respondent did not even request in its counterclaim that the tribunal order the transfer of the disputed shares.

92. In light of Respondent's failure to provide any evidence of urgency with respect to its request, or to prove irreparable harm if its request is not granted, the tribunal is of the opinion that publication of the independent analyst' s report should continue to be enjoined until further order of this tribunal.'

1
See generally Eric A. Schwartz, "The Practices and Experience of the ICC Court", Conservatory and Provisional Measures in International Arbitration, ICC publication dated 1993 at page 45.

2
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a preliminary injunction will be issued when there is a showing of (a) irreparable harm and (b) either (1) likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief. See, for example, Roso-Lino Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., 749 F.2d 124, 125 (2d Cir. 1984), cited by the Claimant.