[00:00:01] Speaker 00: State number 21 by 1734. [00:00:03] Speaker 00: Leonard A. Jackson Associates, BT Avalance versus International Monetary Accounts. [00:00:09] Speaker 00: Mr. Spem, Ferdy Avalance. [00:00:10] Speaker 00: Mr. Newland, Ferdy Epley. [00:00:13] Speaker 02: Good morning. [00:00:14] Speaker 02: Good morning, Your Honor. [00:00:14] Speaker 02: I thought I'd ask a question. [00:00:16] Speaker 02: Counsel, have you been tested so you don't have to argue with the national? [00:00:21] Speaker 01: Unfortunately, Your Honor, we're visiting the family this weekend, and I was ordered by the Civil Rights Bureau for a new disease. [00:00:30] Speaker 01: This is a case about a contract between a lawyer and his client. [00:00:56] Speaker 01: On this contract, the IMF waived its immunity from the party to dispute with the select committee. [00:01:01] Speaker 01: It agreed to arbitration to dissolve those disputes and incorporated the American Arbitration Association rules on the district party law. [00:01:09] Speaker 01: The only question here is, looking at the plain language of the contract, whether the dispute resolution clause includes traditional legal or the arbitration rule. [00:01:18] Speaker 01: This is a straightforward question of contract facilitation. [00:01:22] Speaker 01: The fact of the matter is that the IMF, as it is permitted to do over a part of its agreement, expressly waives immunity for purposes of its voluntary review by incorporating the D.C. [00:01:32] Speaker 01: law into its rules. [00:01:35] Speaker 01: Both provide a legal review of the order. [00:01:38] Speaker 01: The IMF makes three arguments as to why there is an immunity. [00:01:42] Speaker 01: First, the IMF agrees that D.C. [00:01:45] Speaker 01: law applies sausage. [00:01:47] Speaker 01: but he claims that the rights to judicial review under the D.C. [00:01:51] Speaker 01: Code, certainly a part of the D.C. [00:01:53] Speaker 01: law, the Uniform Arbitration Act is not. [00:01:57] Speaker 01: The contract does say that it doesn't provide the limitations to regard to the applicability of the D.C. [00:02:02] Speaker 01: law. [00:02:03] Speaker 01: It simply says in the first part, quote, the article will pace, article will pace, shall be decided according to the law of judicial performance. [00:02:15] Speaker 01: Secondly, the IMF argues that while it agreed the Triple A rule to apply, and in fact, the parties did go to our previous year, it claims that the Triple A rule of 52C does not fit the rule of 52C. [00:02:29] Speaker 01: In fact, it provides that an award can be affirmed by a civil state or federal court in the jurisdiction. [00:02:38] Speaker 01: There's nothing in this contract that excludes this rule or any other Triple A rule. [00:02:43] Speaker 01: not for you to sign the case, but for the California Department of Justice, where the contract is drafted specifically excluding the applicable privilege related to judicial issues. [00:02:55] Speaker 01: Contract in this case? [00:02:57] Speaker 00: Well, my definite thought, Mr. Smith, because it has a reservation of immunity even in the arbitration clause. [00:03:07] Speaker 00: So why isn't that, in effect, saying we will arbitrate, but without any assistance [00:03:13] Speaker 00: confirmation, enforcement, holding for subpoena evidence. [00:03:21] Speaker 01: And here's what, if you look at the specific language of the arbitration clause, you start at the top of section 20.1. [00:03:33] Speaker 01: And if you look through it, with regard to the IMF's existence and immunity, it talks about the statutory basis of the IMF and that the IMF has immunity from judicial process. [00:03:45] Speaker 01: But what it doesn't do, this is an introductory error. [00:03:48] Speaker 01: What it doesn't do is specifically stick to the time that is not waiving in the community under this particular contract. [00:03:54] Speaker 01: It's an observation or a declaration, not a direct or a promise. [00:03:58] Speaker 02: And if you look at what they had to look for in the study, it's specifically like the one that says, well, it doesn't mean. [00:04:06] Speaker 01: It does not. [00:04:07] Speaker 01: And I'll tell you what. [00:04:09] Speaker 01: In 10th and 12th classes, it's understood and graded as a submission of a claim or dispute. [00:04:15] Speaker 01: The act of submission or dispute, the act of submitting the claim itself, [00:04:35] Speaker 01: is not a waiver. [00:04:37] Speaker 01: And that makes sense to me. [00:04:38] Speaker 01: Because if I submit a claim, that's not the essence of what I'm looking for. [00:04:43] Speaker 01: I'm going to be able to award it. [00:04:46] Speaker 01: Therefore, the waiver is. [00:04:48] Speaker 01: But what they've done is they've taken this very narrow act, submission of a claim, and said, that doesn't waiver, waiver is. [00:04:57] Speaker 01: That makes sense. [00:04:59] Speaker 01: It's an internal conflict. [00:05:00] Speaker 00: What could it be referring to? [00:05:03] Speaker 00: It's not. [00:05:07] Speaker 00: It's not. [00:05:10] Speaker 01: It's not aggressive. [00:05:17] Speaker 00: It's not addressing the arbitration the appearance my question is why not it said submission of a claim or dispute to arbitration Shall not be considered to be a wave of the immunities of the imf So it isn't saying submission to arbitration continues to exclude any of all court involving what is [00:05:44] Speaker 00: It's there. [00:05:45] Speaker 01: What it's saying is we're not submitting like this. [00:05:48] Speaker 01: I'm saying we're going to be asked. [00:05:52] Speaker 01: That's not a way we're going to do it. [00:05:55] Speaker 01: It stops there. [00:05:56] Speaker 01: They're all talking about it when I submit. [00:05:59] Speaker 01: That's them saying, just because you said it doesn't mean so. [00:06:03] Speaker 00: So it's guarding against counterplains? [00:06:04] Speaker 00: You need to be more specific. [00:06:06] Speaker 00: I'm not sure what you're talking about. [00:06:07] Speaker 01: It's saying that regardless of what I submit, [00:06:10] Speaker 01: that until I go to the process, there's no order. [00:06:15] Speaker 01: Me being the claimant, me being the attacker. [00:06:19] Speaker 01: So I have a claim I've submitted after my submission. [00:06:22] Speaker 01: There's no waiver in that rule. [00:06:24] Speaker 01: Then we go to the arbitration process. [00:06:26] Speaker 01: Then an award is given. [00:06:28] Speaker 01: There is no waiver because they already adopted the AAA rules. [00:06:31] Speaker 01: You have to proceed in accordance with those rules and an award condition. [00:06:36] Speaker 02: Council, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation, but unless this woman was ambiguous, what happens under the article of law? [00:06:50] Speaker 01: If it's ambiguous, the IMF is a draft for this contract. [00:06:54] Speaker 01: I'm sorry? [00:06:56] Speaker 01: Ambiguity goes against the draft. [00:06:58] Speaker 02: Well, no, wait a minute. [00:06:59] Speaker 02: What's the general law here? [00:07:00] Speaker 02: It doesn't have to be explicit. [00:07:03] Speaker 02: Waiver of immunity? [00:07:05] Speaker 01: The explicit waiver of immunity is above the clause of the list. [00:07:09] Speaker 02: No, no, no, no. [00:07:10] Speaker 02: This is generally vastly explicit waiver. [00:07:13] Speaker 02: I do. [00:07:13] Speaker 02: But you know what, there was ambiguity. [00:07:15] Speaker 02: There was ambiguity, which I don't understand. [00:07:18] Speaker 02: If there was ambiguity, you lose. [00:07:21] Speaker 01: I'm talking about the whole interpretation. [00:07:34] Speaker 02: The best you could make it would be ambiguous. [00:07:40] Speaker 02: And if it's ambiguous, it's too obvious, right? [00:07:43] Speaker 01: It is correct, isn't it? [00:07:44] Speaker 01: It is correct that if I cannot show that there's been an express waiver, I lose. [00:07:48] Speaker 01: Well, that's what's thought. [00:07:49] Speaker 01: It's ambiguous to lose. [00:07:52] Speaker 01: I don't think it goes to the waiver itself. [00:07:54] Speaker 01: I think it goes to procedures with regard to the process. [00:07:58] Speaker 01: I don't understand. [00:07:58] Speaker 01: Well, it's clear from the contract that they go to arbitration. [00:08:03] Speaker 01: It's clear from the contract DC will apply. [00:08:06] Speaker 01: The idea is clear that the article case is governed by DC. [00:08:12] Speaker 01: were decided on each of the laws. [00:08:14] Speaker 00: What does D.C. [00:08:15] Speaker 00: law get you in terms of this question of arbitration and forcibility in terms of the arbitration process? [00:08:23] Speaker 00: Is D.C. [00:08:24] Speaker 00: law granted by the Federal Arbitration Act? [00:08:26] Speaker 00: D.C. [00:08:27] Speaker 00: law is just something in the substance. [00:08:28] Speaker 00: I don't know. [00:08:30] Speaker 01: It means that whether you talk about the Federal Arbitration Act or D.C. [00:08:35] Speaker 01: law, the result is going to be the same. [00:08:38] Speaker 01: So that would have the same impact on those states. [00:08:41] Speaker 00: I thought you were relying on D.C. [00:08:45] Speaker 00: law to support your enforceability. [00:08:48] Speaker 01: Yes, and I am because I believe that if a contract says I have to rely on D.C. [00:08:53] Speaker 01: law. [00:08:53] Speaker 01: And so that's why I'm doing it. [00:08:55] Speaker 01: What D.C. [00:08:55] Speaker 01: law does for me is it provides a review of the process. [00:09:03] Speaker 01: If you look at it, the process of confirmation, modification, and vacation of the war, [00:09:08] Speaker 01: Those modifications are vacating. [00:09:11] Speaker 01: Vacating and what it goes to is, was the process fair? [00:09:16] Speaker 01: Was there evident partiality? [00:09:19] Speaker 01: Was there some abuse of the spirit of your legacy or legacy here? [00:09:23] Speaker 01: And so that's what needs to be done. [00:09:27] Speaker 01: And what you want to get here is the article will also be decided according to the terms of the contract of the law of the District of Columbia. [00:09:33] Speaker 01: You can't just say, okay, well, some of the law applies over here, but I'm going to ignore this D.C. [00:09:39] Speaker 01: law with regard to the statute over there. [00:09:41] Speaker 01: That doesn't make sense. [00:09:42] Speaker 01: You've got to read this thing as a whole. [00:09:43] Speaker 01: That's what D.C. [00:09:44] Speaker 01: law requires, that all terms of the contract be given lawful effect, reasonable lawful effect. [00:09:53] Speaker 01: The, if you stick with the IMSC rotation, what you're doing is you're reading out a little bit into your legal. [00:10:02] Speaker 01: You're living in DC law, you're reading out a little bit into the American Arbitration. [00:10:08] Speaker 01: You're reading out pieces of the D.C. [00:10:11] Speaker 01: law saying that the D.C. [00:10:14] Speaker 01: Moral Arbitration Act doesn't apply, and you turn the last sentence in this section into service, because there's no reason for it to, there's no reason if you have blanket immunity, then why are you putting a clause here that's protecting yourself during this mission of the claimant thing? [00:10:33] Speaker 01: And that's the thing that doesn't make sense. [00:10:35] Speaker 01: You've got to read this up here. [00:10:38] Speaker 01: The uh, I mentioned the California Department of Services HRO. [00:10:43] Speaker 01: There the draft of the contract specifically excluded the third purpose that Purple Lake Gold was going to be working. [00:10:50] Speaker 01: The IMF drafted this contract. [00:10:53] Speaker 01: They, if they had dentists, it would be clear to my client, clear indication to my client upfront that the ramifications of an underforce of, of ramifications of an underforce of arbitration work [00:11:04] Speaker 01: That language is in India. [00:11:08] Speaker 01: The language in here, the reasonable interpretation is that D.C. [00:11:12] Speaker 01: law applies, that AAA rules apply, and that's the proper interpretation. [00:11:22] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:11:31] Speaker 01: Good morning, may I please inform James Newman for the International Monetary Fund. [00:11:37] Speaker 01: Before the board, we ask the court to affirm the District Court's order because the plaintiff has not established that the fund has struck the wave of its absolute traditional duty as required by not only its harvest agreement. [00:11:50] Speaker 02: I take it to the argument that after the arbitration, the arbitration has grown intensely. [00:11:59] Speaker 02: You could say, go Palestine. [00:12:02] Speaker 02: You know, we're not going to do it. [00:12:05] Speaker 02: But they have to. [00:12:06] Speaker 02: We know a lot of Palestine. [00:12:08] Speaker 02: And we've given the hypothetical the worst answer you could possibly give. [00:12:12] Speaker 02: So, how do you deal with climate change? [00:12:18] Speaker 01: Yeah, in theory, Your Honor, they're absolutely immune from every cold and fierce process. [00:12:22] Speaker 02: If you answered my question, you would say, go Palestine. [00:12:25] Speaker 01: They couldn't be healing in port 2. [00:12:27] Speaker 01: course, the award for sure, which I think is the answer to the question. [00:12:30] Speaker 01: They could say, oh, it's in. [00:12:32] Speaker ?: But they haven't. [00:12:33] Speaker 01: And even if we get into these types of policy discussions, whether that's fair or unfair, all of those policy considerations were decided in 1945 on breakfast and lunch break for the fund that negotiated for absolute unity. [00:12:49] Speaker 01: All of them are countries of that kind of greed, policy reasons, [00:12:53] Speaker 01: that the funds absolutely need to be prepared for the judicial process, critical to its role in the international community. [00:13:01] Speaker 01: So we don't get into these positive information that the fund is jammed and stopped, negotiated for absolutely and absolutely nothing. [00:13:12] Speaker 00: Mr. Nolan, how do you swear you're from the family where system courts [00:13:17] Speaker 00: decision and you know, where the course that the arbitration has to have a real world objective, it's not designed for conditions in lacking practical consequences. [00:13:30] Speaker 00: And basically saying arbitration without a waiver of a moving to the extent of reducing it to a judgment, you just not arbitration at all. [00:13:42] Speaker 01: I mean, two things. [00:13:44] Speaker ?: First, you know, enterprises is clearly this [00:13:50] Speaker ?: The content itself said you could reduce this award in any court. [00:14:00] Speaker ?: That's true, but interestingly the court really doesn't focus. [00:14:05] Speaker 00: You're right, that is a distinction. [00:14:07] Speaker 01: Yeah, but so if they found a tribal waiver, and then they go to this point about policy determination, [00:14:18] Speaker 01: Here again, any policy determination is about whether that's fair or not. [00:14:34] Speaker 01: We're deciding not for this work to revisit. [00:14:38] Speaker 01: I mean, here, the point of the jam in particular is that there must be an express waiver that the IMF negotiated. [00:14:48] Speaker 01: Absolutely. [00:14:49] Speaker 00: Nobody questions that the default is waiver. [00:14:53] Speaker 00: and that they're going to be back in focus in some sort of community and that it cannot be initiated in the absence of an express way. [00:15:01] Speaker 00: But really the question here is there is an express clause providing for arbitration, one of the implications of that. [00:15:09] Speaker 00: And I take your permission to do that. [00:15:12] Speaker 00: The arbitration in this contract is basically a potential aid to voluntary settlement and nothing [00:15:21] Speaker 00: that there is no ability of any counterpart into the IMF to compel orchestration under this law, to keep witness, keep the court resistant, you know, witness under this law, or to confirm or endorse an award rendered by the civil rights under this law. [00:15:42] Speaker 01: That's your question. [00:15:43] Speaker 01: I think that's certainly consistent. [00:15:44] Speaker 01: That's what we need to know. [00:15:46] Speaker 00: Is that your position? [00:15:48] Speaker 01: It is. [00:15:48] Speaker 01: It is. [00:15:50] Speaker 00: So finding arbitration, in what sense is the reference in the context of finding arbitration binding? [00:15:59] Speaker 00: It can't be enforced in the court. [00:16:02] Speaker 01: It can be fully ignored. [00:16:03] Speaker 01: No, I think the point there is exactly reinforces it. [00:16:07] Speaker 01: And that is, the arbitration itself is final. [00:16:10] Speaker ?: And those are words, by the way, that mark ends in arbitration, but they were added to reinforce the form. [00:16:17] Speaker ?: But the arbitration is the added. [00:16:19] Speaker 00: It's binding in what sense? [00:16:22] Speaker 00: It's no binding. [00:16:25] Speaker 01: It's binding on the part. [00:16:26] Speaker 01: It's the arbitrary load binding on the part. [00:16:28] Speaker 01: In the United States, that's exactly what the bond did. [00:16:31] Speaker 01: They had an arbitration. [00:16:32] Speaker 01: They went through it. [00:16:33] Speaker 01: They didn't say, we're not going to arbitration. [00:16:40] Speaker 01: I think what Mr. Sachs tends to do is argue for a policy exception [00:17:08] Speaker 01: And that the court should make a policy of determination and use that over to any clear language of a treaty enshrined in a federal statute and reading the words of a contract. [00:17:18] Speaker 00: I don't read into making any of those arguments. [00:17:21] Speaker 00: I'm reading to be arguing about what it means to read a contract. [00:17:25] Speaker 01: It means exactly what the contract says. [00:17:27] Speaker 01: The arbitration at the end. [00:17:29] Speaker 01: that notwithstanding the submission of arbitration, there's no way for the funds to be used in the judicial process. [00:17:36] Speaker 01: That's crystal clear. [00:17:37] Speaker 01: And by the way, it also says in the opening, these are our amenities. [00:17:41] Speaker 01: They're incorporated into federal law and DC law. [00:17:44] Speaker 01: And accordingly, this is what we're willing to do. [00:17:47] Speaker 01: We're willing that we're submitting to arbitration, that the arbitrators themselves will apply DC law in the arbitration case, [00:17:57] Speaker 01: Nothing more, nothing less. [00:17:58] Speaker 01: There's nothing here. [00:17:59] Speaker 01: I think SACS urges that there's a contract towards the law. [00:18:04] Speaker 01: There isn't. [00:18:05] Speaker 01: If you look at C&L, there is a contract towards the law. [00:18:09] Speaker 01: The contract itself says, for the contract, we're being covered by the place of property of the past, which in that case, is correct. [00:18:17] Speaker 00: Is the contract an issue here, a standard contract, behind it, due to other vendors or... I'll say it's the one I saw. [00:18:26] Speaker 01: I'm not saying this is the only one they have, it's a huge organization in the world, but it is a standard contract for professional sources. [00:18:39] Speaker 00: You say in one sense of your group that the IMS executive board would have to wait for the IMS community, but I didn't see anything other than the [00:18:51] Speaker 00: After David, it's supportive of the fact that bylaws in their agreement don't have any reference to this process. [00:19:00] Speaker 00: Do you want me to find out where that is? [00:19:04] Speaker 01: Absolutely. [00:19:04] Speaker 01: If you can go back to the August agreement, and I believe it's actually, you know, in Article 12, section 2, all those that weren't directly branches of one of the organs, [00:19:21] Speaker 01: get granted to the Board of Governors. [00:19:25] Speaker 01: Interim Board of Governors is granted that to the Executive Board in 3A of the Arduous. [00:19:38] Speaker 01: I'm honored that any waiver on judicial immunity is done through the Executive Board. [00:19:59] Speaker 00: So if the arbitrator would corrupt and would rise to reach the whole thing, that's something that potentially could be generally go after, but not, not going. [00:20:17] Speaker 01: And in sports-based. [00:20:27] Speaker 01: Oh, Judge Pillot's question was if there was some kind of misconduct in the party on the tree. [00:20:33] Speaker ?: Flaw, that type of thing. [00:20:35] Speaker ?: That the counter party couldn't go after it. [00:20:39] Speaker ?: They couldn't come to court and vacate the arbitration order. [00:20:44] Speaker ?: Perhaps DOJ was in it. [00:20:46] Speaker 04: And I can confirm that that's the city. [00:20:58] Speaker 01: But I think the last one is, they do talk about rosebud here. [00:21:05] Speaker 01: And rosebud, I think, is not, first, rosebud doesn't have any of the expressed preservation, not once, but twice. [00:21:19] Speaker 01: Rosebud also talks about an expressed labor standard, [00:21:28] Speaker 01: based for a current sovereign, which again, has a lower level than you would do for your financial funding, which has absolutely nothing to do with what the standard is for an express waiver. [00:21:40] Speaker 01: Here, what they asked to do is look at this clause and do what you shouldn't do under the amendment. [00:21:46] Speaker ?: They just look for clauses that are intentional to each other, or suggest a waiver. [00:21:51] Speaker ?: We don't have an amendment. [00:21:52] Speaker ?: There's no explicit express waiver. [00:21:55] Speaker 01: Anyone needs a contract. [00:21:57] Speaker 01: because of self-preservation. [00:22:02] Speaker 04: With that, we have support from the community. [00:22:08] Speaker 04: No time limit. [00:22:13] Speaker 01: Thank you, Rob. [00:22:14] Speaker 01: Just two points. [00:22:16] Speaker 01: One is, in looking at one, you have to look really hard to see that that's present. [00:22:28] Speaker 01: 30. [00:22:38] Speaker 01: I think there's plenty of work that is in that. [00:22:41] Speaker 01: An expressed assertion of the unions. [00:22:44] Speaker 01: It's not. [00:22:45] Speaker 01: It's an introductory clause. [00:22:46] Speaker 01: It says, hey, he has a meeting, and we're preaching this actually to him. [00:22:50] Speaker 01: That's all it says. [00:22:51] Speaker 01: And then we'll go to the according and not understanding anything that is contrary to this agreement. [00:22:56] Speaker 01: He is expressingly afraid that it's doable. [00:22:59] Speaker 01: And they're impolite. [00:23:01] Speaker 01: They're impolite. [00:23:02] Speaker 01: They're impolite. [00:23:04] Speaker 01: They're impolite. [00:23:04] Speaker 01: They're impolite. [00:23:05] Speaker 01: They're impolite. [00:23:06] Speaker 01: They're impolite. [00:23:06] Speaker 01: We wrote, wrote but, wrote but does, and it applies in this case because it shows that it's important that this court be considered a modification of bank statement, or underneath it. [00:23:24] Speaker 01: Finally, see I'm going to advise that case applies, the distinction about the body of the contract. [00:23:33] Speaker 02: That identical reference is in art as rule 52 of the same law. [00:23:52] Speaker 02: Thank you.