Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1144

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Gaytri D. Kachroo dated 5/30/2013 re: Counsel for Class Plaintiff writes For the foregoing reasons, class plaintiff Caso. on behalf of himself and the putative class,requests that the Court deny Standard Chartered's request for relief and compel Standard Chartered to arbitrate "all controversies" as it agreed to do, including all class issues. Class plaintiff Caso also requests permission to reply to any response by Standard Chartered to this letter, if so permitted by the Court. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk of Court is directed to enter into the public record of this action the letter above submitted to the Court by plaintiff Ricardo Rodriguez Caso. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 5/31/2013) (js)

05/30/2013

06:05

TO:12128056382 FROM: 6178641125

l1li

Page: 3

KACHROO LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.
Dr. Gaytri D. K.achroo
225R Concord Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
gkachroo@k:achroole2il.com
,

~.--""--.----

II

':! f;
'i

J:CT1~O;\ICALLY rrU~D

r

')OC #:

II DATE___ ~~-/--:;;:-FILE,I)-:
I

~===~==-=U

AnwQI'. el ai. v. Fairfield Greenwich, Ltd., el aI., No. 09-CV-ll8 (S.D.N.Y.) - Coso v.
Standard Chartered Bank IntematiQnal (Americas) Ltd, (U aI., No. 1O·CV-9196
(S.D.NY.)

Dear Judge Marrero:
We write on behalf of the putative class and class plaintiff Ricardo Rodriguez Caso iD COSO'll.
Standard ChQl'tel'ed Bank lnternol;onal (AmeriCas) Ltd, el 01., No. 1O~CV·9196 (S .D.N.Y.). previously
ordered to arbitration by this Court in Ii May 18,2012 Order (the ~Arbjtratjon Order"). Well past the
timelines established by the Local Rules, Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas) Ltd.
("Standard Chartered") seeks to reinterpret that Order, arguing that it requires Caso to arbitrate his claims
on an individual basis. The Arbitration Order compels arbitration of all of Caso·s claims because, as the
Court held, the parties agreed to arbitrate "all controversies." including questions relating to the putative
class. TI1US, Standard Chartered is really seeking reconsideration, but motions for reconsideration must
be served within fourteen (14) days after entry ofthe Court's determination ofthe original motion. See
Local Rules ofthe United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts ofNew York., Rule
6.3. Furthermore, Standard Charrered's assertion that Caso is refusing to arbitrate under a written
agreement for arbitration is a distortion, at best. It is Standard Chartered, not Case, that is refusing to
arbitrate, boycotting an American Arbitration Association C<AAA") administrative conference. and
providing the AAA with misleading information about the scope ofthe arbitration. See Letter of Sharon
Nelles to Jonathan Weed, attached as Exhibit A. and Caso's response, attached as Exhibit B.I

I

Following the iuuance of tbe Arbitration Order, the actions of the parties and the American Arbitration

Association demonstrate that all parties understood that the Court had

...

!fo'OCl ;i\ f£NT

Honorable Victor Ma.n-ero
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re:

,.,

~I tJ S!DC sB.~ \-.-

BX Facsimile

May 30, 2013

ord~red

"all controversies" related to this

putative class action and all related issues to arbitration. Indeed, the American Arbitration Associadon upon receipt
ofthe demand for arbitration, which included this Court's Order, assigned this matter to its class action section. The
AAA notified the parties that the claim "involves a potential class action," referring them to the "Supplementary
Rules for Class Arbitration$, as amended and effective October 8, 2003." The AAA also scheduled an
administrative conference on May 22, 2013. Counsel for Caso appeared, but Standard Chartered faited to show,
without explanation or notice, tying up Case's counsel and the AAA case administrator for 45 minutes. See May 14,

2013 letter tram Jonathan J. Weed, Manager of ADR Services, attached as Exhibit c.

OS/3D/2013

TO:12128056382 fROM: 6178641125

06:0S

Page

Page: 4

12

As this Court will recall, the Court issued its Arbitration Order after considering multiple
submissions from the parties about whether the two agr~ments at issue - the Application for Brokerage
Account ("Brokerage Agreement'"') and the Nondiscretionary Investment Services Agreement ("NlSA") ­
compel1ed or prohibited arbitration ofCaso's putative class action. The NISA provided that in the event
of any inconsistency between it and any other agreement, the NISA controlled. The Court found that the
NISA and the Brokerage Agreement were inconsistent "because unlike the Brokerage Agreement, the
NISA does not contain a clause prohibiting enforcement of arbitration against a putative class plaintiff.
Rather, the NISA compels arbitration for 'all controversies. m Arbitration Order at 3.
There is another critical inconsistency where the NISA again oontrols. Unlike the Brokerage
Agreement, the NlSA does not contain a clause prohibiting class arbitration and therefore, its referral of
"all controversies" to arbitration includes putative class actions, as the Court aptly found. Jn short,
nothing in the Order or the NISA supports Standard Chartered's assertion that Caso is required to arbitrate
only his individual claims, thereby effectively leaving Caso without even an opportunity to demonstrate
in any forum that the parties agreed to permit class arbitration.2
Funher, as a matter of common sense, iftbe Court had ordered Caso to arbitrate his claims solely
on an individual basis, the Order would undoubtedly have made that explicit, citing the contractual
language and case law that compel1ed that conclusion. Instea~ the Arbitration Order relies on the
language in the NISA compeJling arbiuation of"ajJ controversies" to conclude that there is "no
impediment to arbitrability" ofCaso's putative class action. Arbitration Order at 3. Standard Chartered's
strained and implausible argument Catll10t overcome the Arbitration Order's reasoned. explanation of why
Caso's putative class actioll presents "no impediment to arbitrability," a point the Court would have found
superfluous if it were ordering arbitration on only an indiyidual basis, elsewhere prominently recognized
by lead counsel for Standard Chartered.3
Standard Chartered's reliance on Stolt~Nielsen S.A.. v. A.nima/Feeds Int'/ Corp., 130 S.Ct. 1758,
1776 n.l 0 (20 I0) is unavailing because the Supreme Court explicitly stated that it had "no occasion to
decide what contractual basis may support a finding that the parties agreed to authorize class-action
arbiuation." That case serves only to underscore that the Order in this case did not address, much Jess
resoJve, the myriad issues bearing on whether the parties agreed to permit class arbitration, including
whether the parties agreed to submit that issue to the arbitrator. In light ofthe broad arbitration clause at
issue here, this Court's Arbitration Order correctly left the determination of the parties' implicit or
explicit agreement to class arbitration to the arbitrator. See Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, 646 f. 3d 113, 123­
24 (2d Cir. 2011).
Standard Chartered's argument also cannot be squared with the law in this Circuit. The Second
Circuit Court of Appeals very recently confirmed that an agreement such as the one at issue here clearly
and unmistakably delegates such a question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Tn Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum
2 The Arbitration Order describes the claims brou~ht by Caso as "8 putative class action con~lidated with a number
of other lawsuits into the above captioned multi-district litigation, No. 09 Civ. 0118", distinguishing this case from
those brought by other plaintiffs with similar arbitration clauses proceeding individually. In those individual cases,
Stand2lld Chartered waived the arbitration clause, but strategically chose not to do so with Caso becaust he
represented a putative class., with all of its ramifications. Note that recently, the Fairfield class action represented by
plaintiff Anwar reached a settlement in this court.

3 Standard Chartered's lead counsel, Sharon Nelles, similarly interpreted the Arbitration Order. In her biography on
the Sullivan &; Cromwell website, she claims to have "S\.Iccessfully sent [this] class action to arbitration."

05/30/2013

06:Q5

Page

TO:12128056382 FROM:6178641125

Page: 5

13

L.P., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1256, *2·3 (January 18,2013, 2nd Cir.), the arbitration clause at issue stated
that "the then-applicable rules of JAMS wil1 apply," specifically JAMS's "expedited procedures." 1110se
Rules and Procedures provided that the arbitrator "has authority to determinejurisdiction and arbitrability
issues as a preliminary matter," which were defined to include "disputes over the existence. validity,
interpretation or scope ofthe agreement under which Arbitration is sought, and who are proper Parties to
the Arbitration." [d. at *2. Relying 01'1 that JAMS rule, the Court concluded that "the parties had clearly
committed gateway questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. /d. at *2. Because the enforceability ofthe
class action waiver was such a gateway issue of arbitrabil1ty, "the district court was not free to decide that
question for itself.").

Here, too, the parties clearly and unmistakably committed gateway questions of arbitrabiHty to
the arbitrator, such as whether the applicable arbitration agreement permits class arbitration. As in
Emilio, the parties agreed in the NISA to arbitrate "aU controversies" between them "in accordance with
the rules of the American Arbitration Association." (Docket No.. 880, Ex. B 19(a». The American
Arbitration Association's Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations ("SRCA"), which apply "to any
dispute arising out of an agreement that provides for arbitration pursuant to any of the rules ofthe
American Arbitration Association ("AAA") where a party submits a dispute to arbitration on behalf of or
against a class or purported class" (SCRA, Rule 1), provide in pertinent part:
Upon appointment, the arbitrator shall detennine as a threshold matter, in a reasoned. partial final
award on the construction of the arbitration clause, whether the applicable arbitration clause
pennits the arbitration to proceed on behalf of or against a class (the "Clause Construction

Award").
SeRA, Rule 3. If, as.Standard Chartered argues, this Court had ordered Caso to arbitrate on an individual
basis, the Court would have been deciding an issue that it "was not free to decide ... for itself." Emilio,
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1256, *3. The Arbitration Order appropriately leaves this question of arbitrabillty
to the arbitrator, as the parties clearly and unmistakably intended.
For the foregoing reasons, class plaintiff Caso. on behalf of himself and the putative class,
requests that the CQurt deny Standard Chartered's request for reliefand compel Standard Chartered to
arbitrate "all controversiest as it agreed to do, including all class issues. Class plaintiffCaso also
requests pennission to reply to any response by Standard Chartered to this letter, if so permitted by the
Court.

cc:

Sharon L. Nelles (by email)
David S. Stone (by email)
Mark Schirmer (by email)

05/30/2013

06:05

TO:12128056382 FROM:6178641125

Letter of Sharon Nelles to Jonathan Weed

Page: 6

A

05/30/2013

06:05

TO:12128D56382 fROK:6178641125

Page: 7

SULUVAN & CROMWELL UP

1'III.,EPHC.. "': 1'212-558-4000

FACSIIIIILI!: 1-1112-88&-358.
www.~UI.I.t"OIll.C:OM

IMEiJ~~
..JVew o/~.. .AtVIOOOII-.tAAf

May 30.2013

Via E-mail
Jonathan Weed, Manager ofADR Services,

American Arbitration Association"

950 Warren Avenue,

East Providence, Rhode Island 02914-1414.

Re:

Caso v. Standard Chartered Bqnk, No. 11 516 Y 653 13

Dear Mr. Weed:

I write on behalf ofStandard Chartered Bank International (Americas)
Ltd. (the ··Bank") in connection with the administrative conferenced scheduled for
tomorrow! May 29, 2013, in above-referenced arbitration. As noted in your May 14,
20131etter~ the Claimant's statement of claiIn and demand for arbitration suggest that this
~"involves a potential class arbitration." (May 14.2013 Letter at 2.) As you are
aware, the Claimant first brought his action in the United States District Court for the
SQuthe.rn District ofNew York. On May 18, 2012, the Honorable lucl&e Victor Marrero
granted the Bank's motion to compel individual arbitration of Claimant's claims. A copy
of that order was submitted to the AAA by Claimant together with his demand for
arbitration, and statement of claim.
Claimant's action in federal court has been stayed in light of that order,
. nd. Judge Marrero retains jurisdiction over that action. On May 24,2013. the Btmk.
a
sought telieffrom Judge Marrero, specifically to enforce the Court's May 18,2012
OMer. or otherwise compel Claimant to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis. I am
enclosing a copy of the letter the Bank: submitted to the Court. Clrilinant has not opposed
the relief the Bank requested (under the Court's rules. Claimant bad until Wednesday,
May 29, 2013 to do so). In light oftbe Bank's motion, we asked Claimant's counsel to

05/30/2013

06:05

TO:12128056382 FROM:6178641125

Page: 8

-2­

Jonathan Weed, Manager of ADR Services
agree to stay this arbitration pendinr: resolution of this issue in court. We have not yet
received a response.

~=:;iju::J
Sharon L. Nelles

(Enclosure)
co:

Gaytri ~o

David Stone
David Boies

05/30/2013

06:05

TO:12128D56382 FROK:6178641125

Caso Response

Page: 9

B

05/30/2013

,... ..,-.. ,..
~

06:05

,-.--.I'I--~

TO:1212B0563B2 FROM:617B641125

Page: 10

.............,-.. ,..,.... .

STONE £t1 MAGNANINI
LLP

COMPLEX
NE\\I JERSEV OFFICES

COMMERCIAL

l.ITIGATION

150 JfK ParKway, Short Hills, NJ 01078

P 973.218,1111

F 913.218.1106

May 30, 2013

Via Email: [e-mail]
'''-I

Mr. Jonathan Weed
Manager ofADR Services
American Arbitration Association
950 Warren Avenue
~tPnlvidence.R1

02914-1414
Casa v. Standatd Chartered. Bank: No 11 S)6 Y 653 13

Dear Mr. Weed:
Weare in receipt of the respondent's letter dated today. May 30,2013. We write to advise you of several
inaccuracies in that letter.
That letter states that Caso bas nat opposed defendants' Application which was filed with Judge Marrero

to clarify his arbitration ordor and that such response wtIS due on May 29, 2013. Both of those stIdements

are false.

­

Attached as ''Exhibit A'" hereto is a true and comet copy of the Pacer entry #70 cmtered by Judge

M.mero, 'provided by the plaintiff; giving Wltil May 30, 2013 to respond to respondent's application. We
fully intend to respond today and oppose such application which we believe is completely without
merit. The ~sociation is correct that Judge Marrero ordered all issues pertaining to this putative class
action to arbitration. We will provide a courtesy copy of our response to the Association since the
defendants have chosen to provide you with a copy of their application.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

David S. Stone
DSS:ddt
Enclosure
cc:
Gaytri Kachroo, Esq.
Mark Schinner, Esq.

Sharon Nelles, Esq.
{0OO46212''l1~
iiEW

ORK OFFICES

.

575 Le)(lngton Avenue, NewYorlc NY 10022

www.stonemagnalaw.cOrnWNW.false-daims.net

P 212.644.5854

05/30/2013

06:05

TO:1212B056382 FROM:6118641125

May 14, 2013 Letter from Jonathan Weed

Page: 11

c

05/JO/2013

•

06:05

TO:12128056382 FROH:6178641125

Page: 12

American Arbitration Association

DisptJ.tll RII.HJhHiD'tI. Swrvices Worlclwide

May 14.2013

950 WIIIten Avenuo, Eat Provi&nce, R1 02914
telephonE: [phone]S3 lic:simile: 401-435-oS29

internee hlttr/lwww.adr.(lI.CI

YlAE:MAlL
David S. Stone, Esq.
David B. Hamson. Esq.
Daniel I. Mee. Esq.
Stone Magnanini. L-l.P
150 JFK Parkway
4th Floor
Stone Hills, Nl 07078

Dr. Oaytri D. Kachroo
Kachroo Legal Services
219 Concord Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
David Boies, Esq.
Timothy D. Battin 1 Esq.
MarkJ. Schirmer, Esq.
Straus & Boies, LLP
4041 University Drive
5th Floor
Fairfax, VA 22030
Sharon Nelles, Esq.
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004-2498

Re: 11 516 Y 00653 13
rucardo Rodriguez Caso, On behalfofthemselves
and all other similarly situated
and
Standard Chartered Bank PLC
Dear Counsel:
Thank you for choosing the American Arbitration Association (AAA) to assist you in resolving your
dispute. The AAA is committed to providing you with the highest level of service in order to facilItate
the resolution ofyour dispute. A1i Manager of AOR Services for the American Arbitration Association, I
will be your primary contact for this matter and am here to serve as your resource during the
administration ofyour case. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly with any questions, issues~ or
conoerns. Please note, my staffwill be agsisting me throughout the administration ofthe ~se to ensure
that it is handled efficiently and expeditiously. Accordingly, there may be times when you are contacted,
on my behalf, by a member of my staff. My staff is comprised of Hannah Cook, Case Administrator, and
Rachanda Miller, Case Administrator.
This will acknowledge receipt on May 9,2013 ofa Demand for Arbitration dated May 3, 2013. providing
for administration of a controversy arising out of a contract between the above...captioned parties,
containing n clause providing for administration by the American Arbitration Association (the

OS/30/2013

06:05

TO:12128056382 FROM: 6178641125

Page: 13

Association). We understand that a copy was sent to Respondent. We note that the claim involves a
potential class action. Copies ofour Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedllres, Rules
Amended and Effective June I. 2009, Fee Schedule Amended and Effective June I, 2010, as well as the
Supplementary Rules for C1ass Arbitrations as amended and effective October 8, 2003, may be obtained
from our website at www.adr.org.
I have included the Class Arbitration Infonnation Sheet, which provides you with some basic information
about the AAAls arbitration process and sets forth some initial dates by which certain steps should be
completed by the parties. We call your attention to Section 9 of the Supplementary Rules for Class
Arbitrations, which states in part:
All class arbitration hearings (IlJdfilings may be made public.

Therefore, the parties are encouraged to review their filings for confidential or sensitive information.
including all pleadings~ and take whatever steps are necessary, including redacting their pleadings to
avoid the disclosure of any privileged or otherwise confidential infonnation. The administration of the
case shall be conducted by the AAA with the appropriate party representatives. We shall direct all other
inquiries to the AAA Class Action Docket on our website (www.atit.org).
Pursuant to the applicable arbitration agreement, the hearing will be held in Miamj~Dade County, FL.
Please review the Rules regarding the locale of hearings. Also. in accordance with the Rules; if
Respondent does not answer on or before May 29. 2013, we will assume that the claim is denied. If
Respondent wishes to counterclaim, file two copies, together with the administrative fee, to my attention.
A copy should also be directly sent to Claimant.
This wjtl confirm an Administrative Conference is scheduled on May 22, 2013 at 2:00 PM via
conference call. Please dial in to the conference call by using the following telephone number 8IId
security code:
Telephone: [phone]
Security Code: 43775158#
Please note that the Case Administrator will not initiate the conference call. All participants are requested
to dial in at the above time in order to ensure that the call may begin promptly. For your convenience, the
enclosed Class Arbitration Information Sheet covers items to be discussed on the call.
In order to assist the arbitrator(s) with providing full disclosures, I have enclosed a Checklist for Conflicts
to list those witnesses you expect to present, as well as any persons or entities with an interest in these
proceedings. The checklist should only be sent to the AAA and should not be exchanged between the
parties. The Conflicts Check.list is due on or before May 29, 2013. An online Conflicts Checklist
function is available for cUents using WebFile, our web-based case management tool. If you do not have a
WebFile account, please contact your case manager.
The parties' attention is directed to 1-3.11 and 4-5.5 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar ("Rules'').
As of January I, 2006, the Rules permit a lawyer admitted to practice in a jurisdiction other than Florida
to represent a party in a Florida arbitration, provided that certain administrative requirements are met. In
particular. the Rules require the nOD~FJorida attorney to file a verified statement with The Florida Bar and
opposing counsel which provides information regarding that attorney's p",ctice, prior participation in
Florida arbitrations, disciplinary record in other states, information regarding the representation at issue in
the arbitration and the payment of a $250 filing fee to the Florida Bar.

05/30/~013

06:05

TO:12128056382 FROK:6178641125

Page: 14

The Rules provide additional infonnation and impose additional requirements on non-Florida attorneys
representing parties in rlorida arbitrations. The Rules may be obtained from the Florida bar's website,
www.:floridabar.org
The AAA brings this matter to your attention so that the parties and their counsel will take the appropriate
steps to comply with the Rules.
Please feel free to contact me. should yOll have any questions or concerns. We Jook forward to assisting
you in this matter.
Sincerely,

Jonathan J. Weed

Manager of ADR Services
4014314721

[e-mail]

05/30/2013

06:05

TO:12128056392 FROH:617B641125

Page: 15

Class Arbitration IuformatioD Sheet
This document provides information about your upcoming arbitration and the expectations concerning
each party's conduct throughout the process. Please save this information sheet so that you may refer to it
throughout the arbitration.
Both the Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures., Rules Amended and Effective June 1,
2009, Fee Schedule Amended and Effective June 1,2010, and the Supplementary Rules for Class

Arbitrations (SRCA), as amended and in effect October 8, 2003, govern this matter; where
inconsistencies exist between the Supplementary Rules and the other AAA rules that apply to the dispute,
the Supplementary Rules will govern.
Please also note that the SRCA consist of the following phases:
1. Clause Construction Phase: During this pbase the arbitrator will decide whether the parties'
arbitration agreement allows for class action. If the arbitrator determines the applicable
arbitration clause pennits the arbitration to proceed on behalf of or against a class., the arbitrator
shall stay all proceedings following the issuance of the Clause Construction Award for a period of
at least 30 days to pennit any party to move a QOurt ofcompetent jurisdiction to confinn or to
vacate the Clause Construction Award. If the arbitrator determines that the agreement does not
allow for class action, this matter will be closed after the stay period. See SRCA Section 3.
2. The Class Certification Phase: During this phase the arbitrator will derennine whether to certify
the class or not. If the arbitrator finds certification ofthe class is not wammted, the matter will be
closed. IfClaimant wishes to pursue individual claims, hel she must re-file the indjvidual
dispute. However, if the arbitrator certifies the class, the case will move to the Class
Detennination Phase.. See SRCA Section 4.
3. The Class Detennination Phase: During this phase the arbitrator will define the ctass, identify the
class representative(s) and counsel, and shall set forth the class claims. issues, or defenses. The
Class Determination Award shall stBte when and how members ofthe class may be excluded
from the class arbitration. If an arbitrator concludes that some exceptional circumstance, such as
the need to resolve claims seeking injunctive relief or claims to a limited fund, makes it
inappropriate to allow class members to request exclusion, the Class Detennination Award shall
explain the reasons for that conclusion. The arbitrator shall stay all proceedings following the
issuance of the Class Detennination Award for a period of at least 30 days to penn it any party to
move a court ofcompetent jurisdiction to confinn or to vacate the Class Detennination Award.
See SRCA Section S.
Once the above phases have been completed, hearings will be scheduled and held for the purpose of
detennining the merits ofthe issues.
Administrative CODferente

The AAA may conduct an administrative conference with the parties to identifY and establish
expectations of this process. The conference may be used for parties to agree on ways to tailor the
process to meet the needs of the specific case and ask questions. Please be prepared to discuss the
fol\owing:
• Review ofthe SRCA provisions
• Applicability of any other Procedures set forth in the rules

05/30/2013

06105

TO:12128056382 FROM:6178641125

Page: 16

•

Arbitrator Selection Process

•
•
•
•
•
•

Due date for Answer! Counterclaim
Costs
Verification of party and representative information
Guideline$ for communication
Accelerated Exchange Program
Class Arbitration Docket

Exchange or Correspondence and Documents
It is also important to note that, unless specifically directed otherwise, the parties must exchange copies of

all correspondence during the course ofthe arbitration. The two exceptions are the Checklist for
Conflicts mentioned above and the party's arbitrator ranking list, which you will receive further
infonnation on during the course of the arbitrator appointment process. The parties only need to send
copies of documents, such as discovery, to the AAA if the dooument is to be transmitted to the arbitrator

for a determination.
Documents such as the Demand and amended claims may be posted to the AAA Class Action Docket for
this matter. Therefore, the parnes are encouraged to review their filings for confidential or sensitive
information, including all pleadings~ and take whatever steps are necessary, including redacting their
pleadings to avoid the disclosure of any privUeged or otherwise confidential information.
Timeliness of Filings

Please pay particular attention to response dates included on any correspondence. If you need an
extension to any deadline. please contact the other party to reach an agreement In the event you are
unable to agree, the AAA or the arbitrator will detennine if an extension win be granted. Requests for
extensions must be received prior to the expiration of any existing deadline.

AM WebFile
We invite the parties to visit our website to learn more about how to file and manage your cases online.
As part ofour administrative service, AAA1s WebFile allows parties to perform a variety of case related
activities, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Review, modify, or add new claims
Complete the Checklist for Conflicts form
View invoices and submit payment
Share and manage documents
Strike and rank list of neutrals
Review case status or hearing dates and times

AAA WebFlle provides flexibility because it allows you to work online as your schedule permits - day or
night. Cases originally filed in the traditional offljne manner may also be viewed and managed online. If
the case does not show up when you log in. you may request access to the case through WebFile. Your
request will be processed within one business day after review by your case manager.

U5/3UI2013

06:U5

TO:12128056382 fROH:6178641125

Page: 17

AIViERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION
CHECKLIST FOR CONFLICTS
In the Matter ofthe Arbitration between:
Re: 1 I 516 Y 0065313

Ricardo Rodriguez Caso, On behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated
and

Standard Chartered Bank PLC
CASE MANAGER: Jonathan J. Weed
DATE: May 14,2013
To avoid the possibility of a last-minute disclosure and/or disqualification oftbe arbitrator pursuant to the rules. we
must advise the arbitrator of the names of all persons, firms, companies or other entities involved in this matter.
Please list below all interested parries in this case, including, but not limited to, witnesses, consultants, and
attorneys. In order to avoid conflicts of interest, parties are requested to also list subsidiary and other related
entities. This form will only be used as a list for conflicts, not a preliminary or final witness list. Please note that
the AAA will not divulge this infonnation to the opposing patty, and the parties are not required to exchange this
list. This form will, however, be submitted to the arbitrator, together with the filing papers. You should be aware
that arbitrators will need to divulge any relevant information in order to make appropriate and necessary disclosures
in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules.
An online Conflicts Checklist function is available for client$ using WebFile, our web-based case management tool.
If you do Dot have a WebPile account, please contact your case manager.

NAME

AFFILIATION

DATED: _ _ _ _ _ _ __

PARTY: ____~--______~____________

ADDRESS

Please Print