‘Procedural Order No. 2 …

1. In their Answers to the Request for Arbitration, respectively dated …, Respondent 3 and Respondents 1 and 2 raised procedural objections including (i) the absence of an arbitration agreement binding the parties, (ii) the Claimant’s failure to seek an amicable settlement as provided by the arbitration clause, (iii) the fact that the claim is time-barred, (iv) the fact that the claim is res judicata and (v) the fact that the claim against Respondent 2 has already been settled.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 applied in their letter dated ... for a bifurcation of the proceedings between jurisdictional issues and the merits. They submitted that the Tribunal has the necessary powers for doing so, that they have raised a number of preliminary objections, that knowledge of the merits is not a prerequisite to rule on those and that bifurcation would entail a substantial saving of time and costs for all the parties. [Four months later] Respondents 1 and 2 reiterated their request for bifurcation by email.

3. ... Respondent 3 pointed out that the merits of the claim should be entertained only in case the preliminary objections and jurisdictional challenges are dismissed. Respondent 3 confirmed by email ... its request for bifurcation, as per common practice in international arbitration.

4. Claimant objected by letter ... to these requests for bifurcation, stating that it was not justified or relevant, and replied to the Respondents’ preliminary objections. It reiterated its objections by letter [some four months later] on the grounds that a bifurcation would raise additional costs and would delay the proceedings for more or less 60 additional days.

5. [Subsequently] Claimant was invited to clarify its position on whether the analysis of the jurisdictional issues (jurisdiction, prescription, res judicata and settlement of claims) such as raised by the Respondents required to enter into the merits of the case and would lead to a discussion of these jurisdictional issues and the merits at the same time.

6. By letter ... the Claimant reiterated that a bifurcation would give rise to additional costs and time (around 90 additional days), even more if the jurisdictional objections are rejected. Respondent 3 replied ... that the whole purpose of bifurcation is to avoid the need for costly hearings in which evidence will be heard and witnesses will need to be called. Respondents 1 and 2 stressed on the same day that whilst bifurcation has the potential to extend the arbitration proceedings, this will only be the case if the bifurcation is unsuccessful. On the contrary, it will at least have the result of narrowing the issues, reducing the quantum claimed by the Claimant and removing one or more of the Respondents from the proceedings. Respondents 1 and 2 confirmed that it is not necessary to delve into the merits in order to determine the proposed bifurcation.

7. Taking into account, the number of procedural objections and the possibility to deal with them without entering into the merits, it appears that bifurcating the proceedings will lead to a more efficient resolution of the case and is the appropriate management technique for this case.

8. Bifurcation is listed among the recommended management techniques for saving cost and time under Annex IV of the ICC Rules.

On the basis of the above the Sole Arbitrator orders

The bifurcation of the proceedings between the Respondents’ preliminary objections and the merits.

Accordingly the procedural schedule agreed tentatively during the conference call ... in case bifurcation would be ordered is confirmed as follows:

• Respondents’ submission on procedural objections at the latest on [date];

• Claimant’s reply on Respondents’ procedural objections at the latest [one month later];

• Conference call to be held [one week later] to assess whether another round of submissions is necessary;

• Hearing to be held [the following month] depending on the decision to be made ... on whether a further round is necessary.

As agreed with the parties, the hearing on jurisdictional issues shall take place in [city] with Claimant and Respondent 3 attending physically and Respondents 1 and 2 by video-conferencing.’