Case Record

12TH UPES – DR.
PARAS DIWAN MEMORIAL

INTERNATIONAL ‘ENERGY LAW’ MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
CASE RECORD
IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN
VayuWind GmBH v. Long River Energy Incorporated
UNDER
ICC INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION RULES, 2021
15th April, 2022 ~ 17th April, 2022
ORGANIZED BY:
UPES School of Law, Dehradun

In association with:
Knowledge Partners
1 | 12th UPES-Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International ‘Energy Law’ Moot Court Competition, 2022
THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE
The case record of the 12th UPES – Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International ‘Energy Law’
Moot Court Competition has been drafted by Mr. Shengming Zhang and Mr. Aden Diis.
Mr. Shengming Zhang is an Associate at McDermott Will & Emery. A dual LLM graduate
from Harvard Law School and Bucerius Law School, he has acted as a Research Assistant to
Prof. Dr. Stefan Kröll, Director, Willem C. Vis Moot, Vienna.
Mr. Aden Diis is an, Attorney at Law, and an Investment Funds Lawyer by profession. He has
completed his LLM from Bucerius Law School, Hamburg, Germany and is currently associ-
ated with Capital Bay GmbH based out of Luxembourg.
We would also like to thank Mr. Shubham Singhal, Independent Counsel, Singhal Law Asso-
ciates and Mr. Ankit Singh, Associate, Rab & Rab Associates LLP, Dehradun, Visiting Faculty,
NMIMS School of Law, Bangalore for their valuable insights and inputs.
Lastly, we would also like to extend aur sincere thanks to Mr. Parag Diwan, s/o late Dr. Paras
Diwan, and Ms. Peeyushi Diwan for their constant support in conducting the UPES- Dr. Paras
Diwan Memorial International ‘Energy Law’ Moot Court Competition, 2022.
NOTE: Any attempts by the participating teams to contact the aforementioned persons shall
result in immediate disqualification.
INDEX
INDEX ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION .......................................................................................................... 7
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................... 8
II. LEGAL EVALUATION ........................................................................................................... 12
III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................................ 14
CLAIMANT EXHIBIT 1 ...................................................................................................................... 15
RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF ARBITRATION ........................................................................... 28
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 28
II. FACTS.......................................................................................................................... 28
III. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 30
IV. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF .............................................................................................. 31
RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 1 ................................................................................................................. 32
COMMUNICATION BY THE ICC.............................................................................................................. 37
PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 1 ................................................................................................................... 39
PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 2 ................................................................................................................... 45
VARUN MAURYA, ADVOCATE AT LAW
33 Justice Avenue, Capital City
Bharatstan
Tel (0) 123 4567; Telefax (0) 123 4567, vmaurya@lawyer.me
By email and courier

The Secretariat of the International Court of Arbitration
International Chamber of Commerce
33-43 avenue du Président Wilson
75116 Paris, France
SUB: NOTICE OF ARBITRATION

10 August, 2021
Dear Madame President,
On behalf of my client, VayuWind GmBH., I hereby submit a Commencement Request and

enclose the Request for Arbitration and proof of service on Long River Energy Incorporated
pursuant to Rule 4 of the 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules. A copy of the Power of Attorney author-
izing me to represent my client in this arbitration is also enclosed.
The registration fee has been paid. The relevant confirmation for payment is attached as are the
required documents.
The Claimant requests a declaration that Respondent is required to perform its obligations un-
der the sales contract of wind turbine concluded between Claimant and Respondent in July
2020.
The contract giving rise to this arbitration provides that the seat of arbitration shall be Capital
City, Bharatstan and that the arbitration shall be conducted in English. The arbitration agree-
ment provides for three arbitrators. VayuWind GmBH hereby nominates Mr. Richard Konrad,
Q.C. as its arbitrator.
The required documents are attached.
Sincerely yours
Varun Maurya
ADVOCATE AT LAW
33 Justice Avenue
Capital City
Bharatstan
Tel (0) 123 4567; Telefax (0) 123 4567
vmaurya@lawyer.me
Attachments:
Notice of Arbitration with Exhibits Power of Attorney (not reproduced)
Confirmation of Payment of Registration Fee (not reproduced)
Varun Maurya
ADVOCATE AT LAW
33 Justice Avenue
Capital City
Bharatstan
Tel (0) 123 4567; Telefax (0) 123 4567
vmaurya@lawyer.me
By Email & Courier

Long River Energy Incorporated
15 National Unity Road
01101, Wind Valley, Kineska
REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION
(Pursuant to Article 4 of the International Court of Arbitration Rules, 2021)
In the Arbitral Proceedings between
VayuWind GmBh
34 Ashoka Avenue
Capital City
Bharatstan
- CLAIMANT -
Represented by Varun Maurya, Advocate at Law
VERSUS

15 National Unity Road
01101, Wind Valley, Kineska
- RESPONDENT -
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Claimant, VayuWind GmBH, is a regional market leader in the area of wind power genera-
tion in the country of Bharatstan, a country known for its vast amount of wind energy, espe-
cially in its Northern Plateau. VayuWind maintains circa. 100 different wind farms with the
capacity to generate 10 megawatts of electricity produced via renewable energy and is an im-
portant energy provider in the National Grid of Bharastan.
2. Respondent, Long River Energy Incorporated, is a world leader in the manufacturer of Sin-
tered Neodymium Magnet. Sintered Neodymium Magnet (SNM) is a type permanent magnet
made from an alloy of neodymium, iron, and boron and is the strongest type of permanent
magnet available commercially. It is therefore a vital part of the component for wind turbine
generator with permanent magnet excitation.
3. Around 50% of the Claimant’s wind turbine uses permanent magnet synchronous generator.
permanent magnet synchronous generator is a generator where the excitation field is provided
by a permanent magnet instead of a coil. It is a comparatively inexpensive technology which
is cheap to maintain, smaller in size and does not require the turbine itself to be connected to
an existing direct current power source, since a coil is not needed. Permanent magnet synchro-
nous generator suits the Northern Plateau of Bharatstan particularly well since it was largely a
virgin land with limited infrastructure such as road or power grids.
4. The production of SNM requires the rare earth element neodymium---an element of which
Bharatstan does not have a high reserve. Nor does Bharatstan have the technology or the wish
to develop its rare earth industry on a large scale. Exploitation, smelting and refinement of rare
earth metal is a labour and technology intensive industry, with very high pollution emission.
Waste water from rare earth mine or refinery have a particularly high heavy metal concentra-
tion, and tends to cause damaged surface vegetation, soil erosion, acidification, and heavy
metal toxicity in key microbial processes which may be accumulated through the food chain
and ultimately be consumed by the local population.
5. Rare earth metal production also produces radioactive waste in two ways. To start with, rare
earth minerals are processed primarily from ores and minerals that naturally contain uranium
and thorium, both radioactive elements. Processing rare earth minerals involves the separation
and removal of uranium and thorium from the ore, which usually contains concentrated radio-
active waste. It is estimate d that neodymium and dysprosium manufacturing produce more
radioactive waste than the entire US nuclear industry annually Another element of radioactivity
comes from the radioactive isotopes of the metals involved in a SNM. This source of radioac-
tivity has been rare as neodymium is usually found to be non-radioactive since the radioactive
isotopes would have either entered a stage phase, or the half-life is so long that the ray emission
is negligible or would have been absorbed by the magnet itself.
6. It is based on this industrial knowledge that the Claimant, much like most of its competitors
in the country, chooses to import SNM from its northern neighbor Kineska. Kineska is the
world’s leading manufacturer and exporter of rare earth elements and related products, amount-
ing to 70% of global capacity. Not only does Kineska have the world’s highest reserve of rare
earth element, but its legislation is also more lenient regarding the potential environmental
repercussion of its production. Therefore, it is only natural that companies of Kineska have a
virtual monopoly in the rare earth metal market, due to steady supplies and comparatively lower
associated cost.
7. The Claimant and the Respondent have had a successful cooperation in the past. A steady
business relationship has formed in the past 5 years where the Claimant has purchased 90% of
its SNM from the respondent. Aside from favorable price, another reason is the value-added
service that the Respondent provides on top of the regular sales. SNM are particularly prone to
rust, with progressive rust capable of reducing SNM into magnetic dust and severely reduce
the power output of wind turbine. This problem is made more evident due to the subtropical
climate of the Northern Plateau. The average annual humidity level of Northern Plateau is circa.
75%, significantly accelerating erosion process even with a nickel coating. The Respondent´s
engineers, based in its Bharatstan representative office, provide de-rusting service and reappli-
cation of nickel coating up to two years after the sales of the SNM.
8. In June 2019, Claimant´s Head of Purchase Mr. Jamal Chowdhury approached the Respond-
ent´s Head of International Sales, Ms. Isabella Kim for an order of 1000 industrial strength 6
inch*6 inch*1inch SNM block to be used as part of the magnetic drives for its North Plateau
windfarm. The total purchase price plus shipping and the customary two-year after sale de-
rusting and coating service amounts to a lump sum payment of 2 million USD (See Claimant’s
Exhibit 1). The SNM Sales Contract was signed on July 20, 2020 by electronic signature
between Mr. Chowdhury and Ms. Kim.
9. The parties conducted most of the negotiations via video conferencing and have based their
contract mostly on previous contracts with minimum modification. The negotiation and signing
process have been rather smooth as the Claimant and the Respondent have signed similar con-
tracts 5 times over the years, all concerning purchase of industrial grade magnet. There have
been little disputes from either party over the performance, either in terms of delivery or prod-
uct quality. The Contract is governed by the laws of Bharatstan. Both Bharatstan and Kineska
are signatories to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of
Goods (‘CISG’).
10. Unbeknownst to the Claimant, the Respondent has traditionally acquired its neodymium
metal from a local Kineska refinery named Iron Hand Metal Group to process into SNM. Iron
Hand Metal Group usually get its neodymium ore from a monazite mine called Aurelian Mine.
However, due to unprecedented levels of protest on the site of Aurelian Mine, production has
been temporarily shut down due to inability for trucks to enter the mine blocked by protesters,
as well as the potential possibility of a Kineska governmental inspection of the mine. Consid-
ering the situation and the rather imminent deadline, Iron Hand Metal Group acquired the ne-
odymium ore from a different bastnaesite mine which also has a neodymium deposit. The bast-
naesite mine, named Ferrus Manus Mine, is a recently discovered and opened mine. Iron Hand
Metal Group was the first customer of the ores after its field engineer performed the necessary
test confirming a satisfactory deposit of neodymium deposit in the ore.
11. It was later discovered that the neodymium deposit in Ferrus Manus Mine contained a pre-
vious unknown stable radioactive isotope of neodymium named 149Nd. 149Nd is a mildly radi-
oactive isotope and emits primarily alpha and beta rays and no gamma rays. Gamma rays may
penetrate skin and cause severe radiation pollution. Beta rays, however, can occasionally pen-
etrate skin and cause radiation burn. Up until this point, no radiation test was generally con-
ducted on the neodymium magnet, because it is usually coated with a layer of nickel as an anti-
rusting layer which would absorb most minor radiation. A general radiation test does not need
to be conducted on the pollutant emission for environmental purposes when the ore is minded
from a bastnaesite mine. (See Claimant´s Exhibit 2).
12. The Respondent finished the production of the 1000 SNM blocks in February 1, 2021 and
per its contractual obligation, contact a shipping agency as deliverer of the goods. Smart Cou-
rier Co., Ltd. was chosen as the shipping company as it has P in delivering industrial strength
magnets and has previously been hired by the Respondent. Smart Courier developed an itiner-
ary for shipping and shared the itinerary with both the Claimant and Respondent. The itinerary
involved a regular route that Smart Courier usually used for importing and exporting between
Bharatstan and Kineska: The shipment of SNM would first be delivered by cargo ship to Port
Miyazaki of Nipponia, an important transfer hub between Bharatstan and Kineska. The first
cargo ship will then transship the SNM container to a second cargo ship in Nipponia at Port
Miyazaki, and the second cargo ship will sail for Bharatstan from Nipponia. The practice of
transshipment in Nipponia is very common and expected in the shipping industry, as Nipponia
is a popular hub where different shipping routes to different continents meet.
13. The itinerary that the Respondent and Smart Courier Co., Ltd. has arranged can be seen in
Claimant´s Exhibit 3. It involves the first cargo ship to leave Kineska on March 1 2021 and
arrive at Port Miyazaki, Nipponia on March 7 2021 at the latest. The transshipment inspection
will be conducted by the Nipponia Port Authority. On March 14th, a second cargo ship will
leave Port Miyazaki and head for Bharatstan, arriving on March 21st, where the Claimant’s
associate will examine and accept the goods and arrange subsequent transferal.
14. On February 25, 2021, the Congress of Nipponia published its Amendments of the Peaceful
Utilization of Atomic Energy and The Protection Against Its Hazards Act, 1999 more com-
monly known as No Nuclear Act (See Claimant´s Exhibit 4). The Amendments essentially
abolished Nipponia’s military and civil nuclear use projects, closed its water and airspace to
nuclear powered vessels, and prohibited the import of any radioactive material that emits beta
and gamma rays at rate of more than 5000 millirem per year without a special permit being
applied and granted well in advance. The last prohibition even includes radioactive substances
for medical and industrial use. An Emergency Protocol was included in the White Book which
stipulates that any radioactive substances discovered without permit will be immediately im-
pounded temporarily and stored in controlled radiation proof warehouse until Nipponia’s Min-
istry of Energy expert committee determine its nature and order further method of disposal.
The White Book is widely published and has been referred to as the strictest nuclear ban policy
in the world. The No Nuclear Act was effective immediately upon publication.
15. The Respondent and the shipping company was aware of the White Book but proceeded
with the shipment on March 1, 2021, oblivious to the fact that the SNM is now included under
the import prohibition list due to change of Nipponian law. Due to the large amount of SNM
blocks, the radiation amount far exceeded the required 5000 millirem per year.
16. The first cargo ship, SV Fenris, arrived at Port Miyazaki on March 7. 2021 after an une-
ventful voyage. SV Fenris immediately proceeded to unload the containers containing the 1000
SNM blocks to the transshipment designated customs areas. Whilst the containers do not re-
quire full customs check as it is not designated for importation into Nipponia, the Port Author-
ity still performed a routine transshipment inspection including an open container Geiger Coun-
ter scan. The SNM immediately triggered the Geiger Counter alarm and per the White Book
Emergency Protocol, the 1000 SNM blocks were immediately seized and impounded by the
port authority and transferred to a secure government warehouse. The Respondent and the ship-
ping company was immediately notified. The Claimant was notified on March 8, 2021 (See
Claimant´s Exhibit 5). The Ministry of Energy of Nipponia formed an expert committee and
attempted to secure of source of radioactivity. However due to the previously unknown nature
of 149Nd, proper determination and recommendation of next steps was not concluded until May
31, 2021.
17. In the meantime the second cargo ship, SV Prospero, arrived on time on March 14th to pick
up multiple containers headed for Bharatstan. Nipponia Ministry of Energy refused to release
the 1000 SNM blocks, citing undetermined and unknown origin of radiation source may po-
tentially seriously endanger the life of port workers and the operation of the port. On March
15th, SV Prospero, after informing Smart Courier and the Respondent, sailed for Bharatstan
without the SNM.
18. The SNM was released by Nipponia Ministry of Energy after the discovery of 149Nd by
scientists in May 2021, after this international incident incurred the interest of the scientific
community. After consulting with external experts and having been assured that 149Nd releases
no gamma radiation and very limited beta radiation, most of which would be absorbed by the
anti/rusting nickel coating outside the SNM, the SNM was eventually released and another ship
was chartered by the Respondent to deliver the SNM to Bharatstan. Chartering the third ship
was a lengthy process as now the ship needed special permission and equipment to transport
radioactive substances. The shipment eventually arrived at Bharatstan by June 21st, causing a
full three-month delay.
19. Naturally, the Claimant refused acceptance of the goods, as the SNM, even though only
mildly radioactive and unlikely to cause major body harm, is non-conforming to the implied
warranty of merchantability, not to mention that a full three-month delay constituted funda-
mental breach under CISG.
II. LEGAL EVALUATION
20. The Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction.
21. The SNM Sales Contract contained an arbitration clause stating:
5. Arbitration
5.1. Any claim, dispute or difference of any kind between the Parties arising out of or in
connection with this Agreement including but not limited to its validity and any purported
breach or termination (a Dispute) shall be finally settled under the Inter-national Court of
Arbitration Rules 2021 which Rules are deemed to be incorporated by reference into this
Clause 5.
5.2. It is hereby agreed that:
a) The seat of the arbitration shall be Capital City, Bharatstan;
b) There shall be three (3) arbitrators;
c) The language of the arbitration shall be English;
d) The award rendered shall apportion the costs of the arbitration (including where rele-
vant a Party's own costs arising out of the arbitration);
5.3. The award shall be in writing and shall set forth in reasonable detail the facts of the
Dispute and the reasons for the tribunal's decision; and
5.4. the award in such arbitration shall be final and binding upon the Parties and judgment
thereon may be entered in any Court having jurisdiction for its enforcement; and the Parties
renounce any right of appeal from the decision of the tribunal insofar as such renunciation can
validly be made.
5.5. Each Party will appoint an arbitrator within thirty (30) days of the date of the re-quest
to initiate arbitration who will then jointly appoint a third arbitrator within thirty (30) days of
the date of the appointment of the second arbitrator, which third arbitrator shall not be a citizen
of the Republic of Bharatstan, or the country of the Seller to act as Chairman of the tribunal
and no arbitrator shall have any existing or prior relationship with either Party. Arbitrators
not appointed within the time limits set forth in the preceding sentence shall be appointed by
ICC International Court of Arbitration under the International Court of Arbitration Rules 2021.
5.6. Unless this Agreement is already terminated, the Parties shall continue to comply with
their obligations under this Agreement regardless of the nature of the dispute and notwith-
standing the referral of the dispute to arbitration pursuant to this Clause 5 (but without preju-
dice to the rights and obligations of the Parties in relation to the termination of this Agreement).
22. A standard force majeure clause was also contained in the SNM Sales Contract:
1.1 Definition of Force Majeure
"Event of Force Majeure" means an event beyond the control of the Buyer and the Seller,
which prevents a Party from complying with any of its obligations under this Contract, includ-
ing but not limited to:
1.1.1 act of God (such as, but not limited to, fires, explosions, earthquakes, drought, tidal waves
and floods);
1.1.2 war, hostilities (whether war be declared or not), invasion, act of foreign enemies, mobi-
lization, requisition, or embargo;
1.1.3 rebellion, revolution, insurrection, or military or usurped power, or civil war;
1.1.4 government action, such as trade restriction or lockdown due to epidemic disease
1.1.5 riot, commotion, strikes, go slows, lock outs or disorder, unless solely restricted to em-
ployees of the Supplier or of his Subcontractors; or
1.1.6 acts or threats of terrorism.
1.2 Consequences of Force Majeure Event
1.2.1 Neither the Buyer nor the Seller shall be considered in breach of this Contract to the
extent that performance of their respective obligations (excluding payment obligations) is pre-
vented by an Event of Force Majeure that arises after the Effective Date.
1.2.2 The Party (the “Affected Party”) prevented from carrying out its obligations hereunder
shall give notice to the other Party of an Event of Force Majeure upon it being foreseen by, or
becoming known to, the Affected Party.
1.2.3 If and to the extent that the Seller is prevented from executing the Services by the Event
of Force Majeure, while the Seller is so prevented the Seller shall be relieved of its obligations
to provide the Services but shall endeavor to continue to perform its obligations under the
Contract so far as reasonably practicable.
23. The Claimant has a contractual claim on the SNM Sales Contract based on Article 25 of
CISG regarding fundamental breaches from delivery of non-conforming products and late de-
livery. Respondent had a binding obligation to deliver the SNM blocks by March 21. 2021.
Respondent did not conform to its due diligence obligation and duty of care regarding the ra-
dioactivity of its SNM block. The fundamental breaches have resulted in the non-performance
of a significant part of Wind Farms owned by Claimant, resulting it not being able to output
the allocated megawatts per its agreement with Bharatstan government and the subsequent re-
scinding of government contract and subsequent forfeiture of the license to generate additional
power to feed into the national grid of Bharatstan. The Claimant is currently on the edge of
filing for insolvency reorganization due to loss of business opportunities. Per Article 11 of
2021 ICC Rules, the Claimant hereby informs the ICC Secretariat that this arbitration action is
currently being partially funded by Fulgurite Capital, an independent third-party funder.
24. Respondent is not indemnified by the Force Majeure clause regarding the delay caused by
the action of the Nipponia authority. The Force majeure clause is included to address situations
where it is no longer possible to perform a contract. In the present case, however, the change
of law, whilst causing significant delays, did not render the contract impossible to perform as
the Respondent performed the contract eventually. The SNM Sales Contract does not include
a change of law clause, and the delay is caused by a change in the legislation of Nipponia
instead of government actions. A change of law does not fall under the government action part
of the force majeure clause, as the change of law was enacted by the legislature of Nipponia
rather than the Nipponian government. In any case, the change in Nipponian law took place
prior to the Respondents shipping itinerary, and is therefore within the control of the Respond-
ent and is therefore not unforeseeable, as Respondent could have easily chosen a different ship-
ping route that does not involve Nipponia as a transshipping hub. However, the Respondent
instead opted for the most cost-effective option which is the use of the Nipponia ports.
III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
25. In light of the above, Claimant asks the Arbitral Tribunal for the following orders:
A. Respondent is liable for any damages resulting from the late delivery and non-conforming
nature of the SNM blocks
B. Respondent should be ordered to bear the costs of this arbitration, including any legal costs.
Varun Maurya (Counsel for the Claimant)

ADVOCATE AT LAW
33 Justice Avenue
Capital City
Bharatstan
Tel (0) 123 4567; Telefax (0) 123 4567
vmaurya@lawyer.me
CLAIMANT EXHIBIT 1
From: Jamal Chowdhury <J. Chowdhury@VayuWind.bh>
Sent: 1 June 2019, 8:25 am
To: Isabella <Isabella.kim@longriverenergy.ki>
Cc: Sanjay Gandhi <S.Gandhi@ VayuWind.bh>
Re: Purchase offer
Dear Isabella,
Many thanks for your time last week during our meeting via video conferencing. It was
good to see you, to catch up and to re-establish our long-lasting and successful business
relationship in my new function.
As discussed during our meeting, we recently signed a power purchase agreement with the
government of Bharatstan with respect to establishing an off-grid 300MW Wind Power
Plant in the outskirts of Capital City, Bharatstan in order to feed-into the national grid of
Bharatstan in line with the latest regional understanding to move towards a clean energy
with a strong preference in Solar and Wind energy.
As you are aware, VayuWind GmBH has an internal assembly for the final wind turbines
as well as solar panels used in most of our constructions. However, at the moment, we are
in need of large quantities of Sintered Neodymium Magnet (SNM) a key component of the
wind turbines. As we have had a long-standing relationship in terms of supplies in energy
related products, we are keen to equally purchase the same from Long River Energy Incor-
porated.
Could you please prepare the necessary contractual documents for signature and send them
to our in-house Counsel, Sanjay Gandhi, to whom I introduced you during our meeting and
whom I put in cc. He will take care of the further discussions, if any, and the implementa-
tion of the Contract.
Following our discussion, I assume the documents for the sale of SNM will largely be based
on our existing templates for supplies Agreements? As already indicated at the Meeting, the
applicable law and submission to Arbitration will be addressed during the negotiation of the
contract. However, whatever we will settle on in the contract will apply.
You are probably aware of the fact that given the underlying power purchase agreement has
a long stop of date of within 5 years, we are keen to get the supplies within the discussed
timeframe. I wish to highlight that it is of critical importance that the timeframe established
under the agreement and in accordance with our customs as long-standing clients are ad-
hered to.
In light of the general renewable energy atmosphere, it is, however, absolutely crucial for
us that all the components of the wind turbines are from a clean source and adhere to the
various provisions of all laws from all the member states of the region.
Sincerely,
Jamal
Head of Purchase
VayuWind GmBH
34 Ashoka Avenue
Capital City
Bharatstan
From: Allan Silver<allan.silver@ longriverenergy.ki >
Sent: 9 July 2019, 6:09 a.m.
To: Sanjay Gandhi <S.Gandhi@VayuWind.bh>
Cc: Jamal Chowdhury <J. Chowdhury@VayuWind.bh>
Re: Contract Documents
Dear Mr Sanjay,
Please find attached a pdf of the contract documents which Mr Chowdhury asked me to
prepare. As Mr Chowdhury expected, the template used is our customized and shortened
version of existing model agreement for supplies that we have operated under our long-
standing arrangement over the last 5 years.
Kindly note that the key points relating to the applicable law and Arbitration have been
aptly addressed in the sales contract.
The management of the Contract will be handled by myself. Thus, if you have any ques-
tions, I will be your point of contact. Please do not hesitate to contact me.
I have sent you two signed versions of the contract documents. Could I kindly ask you
to sign one copy and return it to me for my files and the necessary paperwork for ship-
ments.
Kind regards,
Allan Silver
Attachment: SNM Sales Contract
SINTERED NEODYMIUM MAGNET SALES AGREEMENT
Dated 20 July 2020

BETWEEN
Long River Energy Incorporated a corporation organised and existing under the Laws of
Kineska whose principal place of business is at 15 National Unity Road 01101, Wind Valley,
Kineska (the Seller);
AND
VayuWind GmBH a company incorporated in the Republic of Bharatstan with its registered
office at 34 Ashoka Avenue, Capital City, Bharatstan (the Buyer).
the parties set out above jointly referred to as the “Parties” and each individually referred to
as a “Party” -
1. Recitals
1.1. The Seller is an is a world leader in the manufacturer of Sintered Neodymium Magnet.
1.2. The Buyer wishes to buy and Seller wishes to sell and maintain Sintered Neodymium
Magnet (SNM), a vital part of the component for wind turbine generator with perma-
nent magnet excitation to be used in the production of wind turbines.
1.3. This Agreement sets out the terms and conditions on which the Parties agree to buy
and sell SNM repeatedly.
2. Term
2.1. The term of this Agreement (the Term) shall commence on the date hereof and shall
continue in effect, unless extended or earlier terminated in accordance with the terms
of this Agreement.
3. Sale and Purchase
3.1. The Seller shall sell and deliver 1000 industrial strength 6 inch*6 inch*1inch SNM to
the Buyer and the Buyer shall take, and pay for, SNM delivered by the Seller in ac-
cordance with the terms of this Agreement.
3.2. The Seller shall maintain the SNM components by providing de-rusting services for a
period of two years after the sale pursuant to further specification agreed between the
Parties.
3.3. Payment for shall be made by the Buyer to the Seller in the below provided order:
3.3.1. 60% of the purchase price upon the delivery of the SNM.
3.3.2. The remaining 40% to be invoiced by the Seller to the Buyer during the course
of two years after the delivery of the SNM for the de-rusting services of the SNM.
4. Quality and Specifications
4.1. At time and place of shipment, the SNM shall be of good merchantable quality of the
agreed description and specifications.
4.2. If the SNM is loaded in more than one container of the same ship, the analysis details
of the oil in each separate tank shall conform with the above.
5. Arbitration
5.1. Any claim, dispute or difference of any kind between the Parties arising out of or in
connection with this Agreement including but not limited to its validity and any pur-
ported breach or termination (a Dispute) shall be finally settled under the International
Court of Arbitration Rules 2021 which Rules are deemed to be incorporated by refer-
ence into this Clause 5.
5.2. It is hereby agreed that:
a) The seat of the arbitration shall be Capital City, Bharatstan;
b) There shall be three (3) arbitrators;
c) The language of the arbitration shall be English;
d) The award rendered shall apportion the costs of the arbitration (including where
relevant a Party's own costs arising out of the arbitration);
5.3. The award shall be in writing and shall set forth in reasonable detail the facts of the
Dispute and the reasons for the tribunal's decision; and
5.4. the award in such arbitration shall be final and binding upon the Parties and judgment
thereon may be entered in any Court having jurisdiction for its enforcement; and the
Parties renounce any right of appeal from the decision of the tribunal insofar as such
renunciation can validly be made.
5.5. Each Party will appoint an arbitrator within thirty (30) days of the date of the request
to initiate arbitration who will then jointly appoint a third arbitrator within thirty (30)
days of the date of the appointment of the second arbitrator, which third arbitrator shall
not be a citizen of the Republic of Bharatstan, or the country of the Seller to act as
Chairman of the tribunal and no arbitrator shall have any existing or prior relationship
with either Party. Arbitrators not appointed within the time limits set forth in the pre-
ceding sentence shall be appointed by ICC International Court of Arbitration under the
International Court of Arbitration Rules 2021.
5.6. Unless this Agreement is already terminated, the Parties shall continue to comply with
their obligations under this Agreement regardless of the nature of the dispute and not-
withstanding the referral of the dispute to arbitration pursuant to this Clause 5 (but
without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the Parties in relation to the termina-
tion of this Agreement).
6. Termination
6.1.1. [Not provided]
7. Shipment And Classification
7.1. Shipment in good condition in ship/s which comply with the qualifications and opera-
tional procedures for Ships Engaged in the Carriage of minerals and ores in in force at
the date of the Bill of Lading. The SNM is to be shipped on a ship which, after loading
in one or more origin ports, will proceed directly or indirectly, on a geographically
normal route from the port/s of shipment to the port/s of destination.
8. Force Majeure
8.1. Event of Force Majeure" means an event beyond the control of the Buyer and the
Seller, which prevents a Party from complying with any of its obligations under this
Contract, including but not limited to:
8.1.1. act of God (such as, but not limited to, fires, explosions, earthquakes, drought,
tidal waves and floods);
8.1.2. war, hostilities (whether war be declared or not), invasion, act of foreign ene-
mies, mobilisation, requisition, or embargo;
8.1.3. rebellion, revolution, insurrection, or military or usurped power, or civil war;
8.1.4. government action, such as trade restriction or lockdown due to epidemic dis-
ease
8.1.5. riot, commotion, strikes, go slows, lock outs or disorder, unless solely restricted
to employees of the Seller or of his Subcontractors; or
8.1.6. acts or threats of terrorism.
8.2. Consequences of Force Majeure Event
8.2.1. Neither the Buyer nor the Seller shall be considered in breach of this Contract
to the extent that performance of their respective obligations (excluding payment
obligations) is prevented by an Event of Force Majeure that arises after the Effec-
tive Date.
8.2.2. The Party (the “Affected Party”) prevented from carrying out its obligations
hereunder shall give notice to the other Party of an Event of Force Majeure upon
it being foreseen by, or becoming known to, the Affected Party.
8.2.3. If and to the extent that the Seller is prevented from executing the Services by
the Event of Force Majeure, while the Seller is so prevented the Seller shall be
relieved of its obligations to provide the Services but shall endeavor to continue
to perform its obligations under the Contract so far as reasonably practicable.
9. Miscellaneous
9.1. The place of performance is the place to which the Products are to be delivered in
accordance with the contract or where the service is to be rendered.
9.2. The Seller shall not subcontract its obligations or parts thereof to a third party.
9.3. If one of the provisions of this Agreement should be or become ineffective, this shall
not affect the validity of the Agreement in other respects. The parties hereto are obliged
to agree upon a provision to replace the ineffective provision that approximates as
closely as possible the economic intent of the ineffective provision.
9.4. The contractual relationships shall be governed and construed in accordance with the
laws of Bharatstan.
9.5. The Buyer further has the right to take legal action against the Seller at a court with
jurisdiction over the registered office or branch office of the Seller or at the court with
jurisdiction over the place of performance at our discretion
Signed by the parties
For and on behalf of VAYUWIND GMBH
Jamal Choudhary
Head of Purchase
For and on behalf of LONG RIVER ENERGY INCORPORATED
Isabella Kim
Head of International Sales
CLAIMANT EXHIBIT 2
EXPERT OPINION OF PROF. DR. CARL VON WELSBACH
My name is Prof. Dr. Carl von Welsbach and I hold a doctoral degree in chemistry from Univer-
sity of Heidelburg. I currently hold teaching and research positions in University of Heidelburg.
A team led by me discovered neodymium deposit in Ferrus Manus Mine contained a previous
unknown stable radioactive isotope of neodymium named 149Nd in 2020. Therefore, I believe I
am in a unique position to describe the radioactivity of the isotope and the neodymium in general.
Natural neodymium is a mixture of seven different isotopes. Five of them are stable—neodym-
ium-142 (27.13 percent), neodymium-146 (17.19 percent), neodymium-143 (12.18 percent), ne-
odymium-145 (8.30 percent), and neodymium-148 (5.76 percent)—and two are radioactive, ne-
odymium-144 (23.80 percent) and neodymium-150 (5.64 percent). A total of 31 radioactive iso-
topes of neodymium (excluding nuclear isomers) have been characterized, ranging in mass from
124 to 161 and in half-life from 0.65 second (neodymium-125) to 7.9 × 1018 years (neodymium-
150). The half-life of most isotopes is either too short to have been stable in nature or too long
that the radiation level would have been negligible.
149
Nd has a half-life of 450 years and emits primarily alpha and beta rays and no gamma rays，
making it a mildly radioactive isotope, given its relatively long half-life and the fact that it cannot
produce skin penetrating gamma rays. Beta rays, however, can occasionally penetrate skin and
cause radiation burn. Given that 149Nd is a rare earth metal and has negligible amount within
human body, 149Nd does not have any notable toxicological effect on human body. Even though
the potential radioactive quality of neodymium was recently discovered. It has been common to
conduct radiation test on metal neodymium or waste from the neodymium mine. Neodymium is
usually mined from two ores---monazite and bastnaesite. Monazite is quite radioactive due to the
presence of thorium. Bastnaesite is usually not radioactive but bastnaesite ores are sometimes
found close to other uranium and/or thorium-rich ores, thus making it possibly radioactive It is
therefore prudent industrial practice that a general radiation test is usually conducted on the pol-
lutant emission for environmental purposes when neodymium ores are extracted.
If any mine or subsequent manufacturer chose to perform radioactive test on neodymium metal
refined and smelted, prior to the discovery of 149Nd, a spike in beta ray emission would likely to
have been discovered and the neodymium metal in question would be tagged as mildly radioac-
tive. The reason would probably be attributed to uranium and/or thorium ores which are usually
found in the same min.
Prof. Dr. Carl von Welsbach

Uni Heidelberg
Grabengasse 1, 69117
Heidelberg, Germany
CLAIMANT EXHIBIT 3
From: Joshua Lingard<joshua.lingard@smartcourier>
Sent: 1 February 2021, 6:09 a.m.
To: Allan Silver<allan.silver@ longriverenergy.ki>
Cc: Isabella <Isabella.kim@longriverenergy.ki>
Re: Shipment Itinerary
Dear Allan,
I hope my email finds you well.
I am writing to you regarding the contract dated 20 July 2020 for the sale of Sintered
Neodymium Magnet (SNM).
Kindly note that the shipment of the SNM blocks will generally involve a regular route
that we usually use for importing and exporting between Bharatstan and Kineska: The
shipment of SNM would first be delivered by cargo ship to Port Miyazaki of Nipponia,
an important transfer hub between Bharatstan and Kineska. The first cargo ship will then
transship the SNM container to a second cargo ship in Nipponia at Port Miyazaki, and
the second cargo ship will sail for Bharatstan from Nipponia.
In Particular, please note the following key dates with respect to the shipment:
• First cargo ship to depart from Kineska Port on 1 March 2021

• First cargo ship to arrive at Port Miyazaki, Nipponia on 7 March 2021
• The transshipment inspection to be conducted and finalized by the Nipponia Port
Authority on 9 March 2021
• The Cargo to be transferred to the second Cargo Ship by 13 March 2021
• Second cargo ship will depart from Port Miyazaki and head for Bharatstan on 14
March 2021
• Second Cargo ship will arrive on 21 March 2021, where the Claimant’s associate
will examine and accept the goods and arrange subsequent transferal.
Kindly note that we will notify you immediately, in any case within
two business days in the event of changes in the itinerary.
Kind regards,
Joshua
CLAIMANT EXHIBIT 4
EXCERPT OF NIPPONIA NO NUCLEAR ACT
4th SESSION OF THE CONGRESS OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIPPONIA
Gondor, Nipponia, the 25th February, 2020
AMENDMENT TO THE PEACEFUL UTILIZATION OF ATOMIC ENERGY AND THE

PROTECTION AGAINST ITS HAZARDS (NO NUCLEAR) ACT, 1999
In order to protect life, health and property against the hazards of nuclear energy and the harm-
ful effects of ionizing radiation and to compensate for any damage and injuries incurred,
The Government of Nipponia hereby enacts this Government Regulation to ensure that the
Federal Republic of Nipponia meets its international obligations in the field of nuclear energy
and radiation protection.
……
ARTICLE 1
All nuclear tests for military purposes, regardless of explosive force equivalent, are hereby per-
manently suspended.
ARTICLE 2
All civil projects using fissionable materials, including but not limited to nuclear power stations,
terra forming and nuclear-powered civilian vessels are hereby permanently suspended.
ARTICLE 3
Nipponia air space, water and land are permanently closed to civil, scientific and military vessels
powered in whole or in part by atomic energy.
ARTICLE 4
The importation, manufacturing and use of radioactive materials that emits beta and gamma rays
at rate of more than 5000 millirem annually shall be subject to a license issued by the Ministry
of Energy. This license needs to be applied minimum six months prior to the planned importation,
manufacturing and use of said radioactive materials. This license also applies to radioactive ma-
terials for medical and industrial examination
ARTICLE 5
Nipponian airports, harbors and border control stations are entitled to conduct radiation test on
any packages, containers and shipments destined for or transferring via Nipponia air space, water
and land.
……..
ARTICLE 25
Pursuant to Article 4 and 5, should unpermitted radioactive material be found within Nipponia
air space, water and land, they are to be immediately impounded temporarily and stored in con-
trolled radiation proof warehouse which the Ministry of Energy shall set up in major cities, air-
ports, harbors and border controls. Said material shall remain impounded until a Ministry of En-
ergy expert committee determine its nature and order further method of disposal.
Sd/-
Chairman
th
4 Session of the Congress of Federal Republic of Nipponia
CLAIMANT EXHIBIT 5
From: Allan Silver<allan.silver@ longriverenergy.ki>
Sent: 8 March 2021, 6:09 a.m.
To: Jamal Chowdhury <J. Chowdhury@VayuWind.bh>
Cc: Sanjay Gandhi <S.Gandhi@VayuWind.bh>
Re: Developments in the Delivery of the SNM Sales Contract
Dear Mr Chowdhury,
I am following up on our conversation below regarding the delivery of the SNM Blocks
pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement dated 20 July 2020. Kindly note that as per the
provisions of the Agreement, a force majeure event arose that might lead to changes in the
delivery timelines.
As you might be aware, on February 25, 2021, the Nipponian Legislature published its
Amendments of the Peaceful Utilization Of Atomic Energy And The Protection Against Its
Hazards Act, 1999 , more commonly known as No Nuclear Act, in which all material whether
natural or produced passing through the territory of Nipponia will undergo a mandatory in-
spection for its compliance with the provisions of the stated law at the point of entry. The
law further includes An Emergency Protocol which stipulates that any radioactive substances
discovered without permit will be immediately impounded temporarily and stored in con-
trolled radiation proof warehouse until a Ministry of Energy expert committee determine its
nature and order further method of disposal.
As initially discussed in our multiple correspondences regarding the shipping process, the
shipment route includes the use of Port Miyazaki as a transshipment designated customs areas.
Whereas we did not anticipate customs check by the state of Nipponia as the shipments are
not going into the state of Nipponia, the customs nonetheless ran a routine transshipment
inspection. Subsequently, the shipment was seized on the grounds that the SNM triggered a
Geiger Counter alarm and as per the provisions of the Emergency Protocol under the newly
introduced legislation, the SNM was seized.
In light of the foregoing and as per the provisions of the Sales Contract, we are hereby for-
mally notifying the Buyer of the arising of a Force Majeure event. The Seller together with
the shipping agency, Smart Courier Co., Ltd. Will follow up with the state of Nipponia offi-
cials and the Ministry of Energy in order to procure the release of the shipment.
Kindly note that while the above has an impact on the flow of the contractual duties of both
parties, the same does not fall within the duties and responsibilities of the Seller. The events
are entirely beyond the control of the parties and as the same arises from a newly enacted
legislation, was not foreseeable by either party to the contract. As such, we wish to reiterate
that the above events do not constitute a breach of contract or fall within any other provisions
in the contracted other than the clause on Force Majeure.
While the Seller will still ensure that it takes all the necessary steps to effect delivery and
performance of the contract, this shall not constitute admission of liability and should not be
interpreted as such.
We look forward to your response.
Kind Regards,
Allan Silver
Murdock Law Offices
th
5 Floor, Artemis Towers,
Hell’s Kitchen, Gondor
Kineska
Tel (0) 872 8213; Telefax (0) 182 9172
E-mail: dd.murdock@mlaw.com
75116 Paris, France
RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF ARBITRATION
(Pursuant to Article 5 of the International Court of Arbitration Rules, 2021)
25 August, 2021
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This Response refers to Claimant’s Notice for Arbitration (hereinafter the “Response”),
on behalf of Long River Energy Incorporated (hereinafter “Respondent”) pursuant to Ar-
ticle 5 of the of the International Court of Arbitration Rules 2021 (the “ICC Arbitration
Rules”).
2. In this Response, unless otherwise stated, Respondent adopts the abbreviations used in
Claimant’s Notice of Arbitration.
3. Unless otherwise stated, capitalized terms shall have the meanings given to them in the
Notice.
4. Unless expressly admitted, each paragraph of the Notice is denied by Respondent.
5. The Respondent nominates Ms. Lucy Tyrell, Managing Partner at Tyrell Johnson Rayder
LLP, as its nominee arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
II. FACTS
6. Respondent is one of the pioneers in the production and supply of Sintered Neodymium
Magnet (SNM) with impeccable reputation for its timely performance of its contracts, a
stellar reputation that led to its long-standing business relations with the Claimant.
7. The location of the mines, its exploration and subsequent delivery processes formed a
substantial business strategy and brand of the Respondent, a fact that was well known to
the Claimant and that led to the respectable relation between the parties to these proceed-
ings. In fact, during the negotiation process, the Claimant’s Head of Purchase, Mr. Jamal
Chowdhury in doing his own due diligence inquired on these key issues. The Respondent
in complying with these requests and upholding the good working relationship with the
Claimant disclosed all the steps forming the basis of the contract.
8. The Claimant were not only informed of the location of the mines, the extraction process
as well as the various chemical components of the products but also the timeline for the
delivery of the SNM (See Respondent Exhibit 1).
9. The discovery of the previously unknown neodymium radioactive isotope is not a breach
of contract that may be attributed to the Respondent. The Respondent could not have ex-
pected a scientific discovery that has eluded scientific community and the industry experts
until recently. The respondent has followed the recommended industrial guidelines regard-
ing the extraction of neodymium ore established by Global Rare Earth Element Industry
Association. Specifically, general radiation tests are usually only performed on emissions
and metals from monazite mine, since most radioactive by-product of neodymium, partic-
ularly gamma ray emitting actinides such as thorium and uranium are rich in monazite.
Bastnasite mine is usually only checked for gamma rays. (See Respondent Exhibit 2).
Were it not for the particularly strict testing mechanism of Nipponia, 149Nd would not have
been discovered.
10. Further and in response to paragraph 23 of the Notice, the unforeseeable circumstances
leading to the delay in the delivery of the SNM were covered under the general provisions
of the Force Majeure Clause of the contract. The Respondent provided a notice to the
Claimant as soon as the Force Majeure event occurred notifying them that the timeline for
the delivery of the SNM will be affected and that the Respondent will nonetheless aspire
to perform the contract. Evidently, the Respondent as promised performed the contract by
delivering the goods to the Claimant.
11. Nipponia’s No Nuclear Act itself was a completely unseen development from Respond-
ent’s side. While it is true that Nipponia has exercised a certain degree of caution towards
its nuclear industry following a catastrophic nuclear waste leaking incident in 2011, the
industrial committee has been shocked by the degree of the new No Nuclear Act, specifi-
cally its abject discarding of nuclear industry and its now extremely cumbersome testing
and withholding mechanism regarding any radioactive material, the definition of which
has become extremely strict. This is especially true regarding beta ray, which 149Nd emits
primarily. The worst injury that a human may suffer due to beta ray constitutes what is
called a “beta burn”, which happens only after prolonged exposure to beta ray by the naked
skin. The result of “beta burn” is, in worst case scenario, blistering in the skin which can
be healed by normal skin ointment in a matter of months with no permanent scar left. A
protection of most materials, i.e., cloth, plastic or metal less than 2 centimeters may block
all beta particles, meaning rubber gloves, goggles or face shield as well as normal clothing
can block the vast majority of beta rays. The Nipponia government’s very simplistic cutoff
line at beta and gamma ray emission at rate of more than 5000 millirem per year as prohi-
bition of importation is unheard of in the world (See Respondent Exhibit 3).
12. The rationality of the Nipponia No Nuclear Act is a subject of investment arbitration and
lies beyond the scope of the present disputes. However, the foreseeability of the repercus-
sion of the No Nuclear Act needs to be combined with the equally unforeseeable discovery
of the 149Nd. Even though the Respondent has become aware of the implementation of No
Nuclear Act in Nipponia prior to the arranged shipping by SV Fenris, it has no reason to
foresee that neodymium, a metal that has hitherto been deemed non-radioactive, would
have a previously unknown radioactive isotope that would trigger protocols under Nip-
ponian law.
III. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Jurisdiction
13. The Arbitral Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on these proceedings as the Claim
before the Tribunal is substantially based on the failure by the Claimant to meet the statu-
tory provisions of the state of Bharatstan which led to the revocation of the Claimant’s
license to construct the Wind Power Plant. In particular, the Respondent contends that the
Claimant did not institute the claim before the right tribunal as the Energy Act, 2019 of
the state of Bharatstan requires that any legal claim arising from the provisions of the of
the said statute be first addressed by the Energy Tribunal prior to its institution against any
other adjudicatory body. (See Respondent Exhibit No.4).
Substance
14. Contrary to the allegations of the Claimant, the contract is not governed by the CISG but
rather the laws of Bharatstan. Article 1(1) of CISG indicates that that CISG applies to the
contracts of sale of goods. However, under the SNM sales contract. The Respondent pro-
vides at least two major services for the Claimant, namely transportation of the SNM
blocks and the de-rusting service for two years as a after sale service. The SNM sales
contract did not include any other details regarding amount payable to subcategory of ser-
vices except the requirement of a lump sum $ 2 million payment, and the payment schedule
of 60% payable on delivery and 40% payable upon competition of de-rusting service.
However, it is evident from the circumstances of the case that services provided occupies
a preponderant part of the contract value.
15. The Claimant is not entitled to any of the requested reliefs. The Respondent avers that
there was never a breach of contract resulting in the losses claimed by the Claimant nor
was their malice or bad faith on the part of the Respondent in the performance of the
Contract. The Respondent complied with the provisions of the contract regarding its per-
formance, and any delay in performance is caused by event listed in the Force Majeure
clauses of the SNM Sales Contract.
16. The Claimant´s argument that force majeure does not apply in the present situation is with-
out merits. A change of law is force majeure and does not need a separate clause to relieve
parties of breach of contracts. Specifically, government action was listed as force majeure
and the present No Nuclear Act, although an action of Nipponian legislature, certainly
reflects the long existing cautious policy towards the nuclear industry that Nipponia has
advocated publicly. In this particular case, government action should be interpreted
broadly to encompass change in law.
17. On the basis of the aforementioned facts, Claimant is obviously neither entitled to the
requested declarations nor to any of the other claims. Thus, the case should be dismissed
outright as it lacks merit, legal and factual basis and substratum.
IV. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
18. In light of the above, Respondent requests the Arbitral Tribunal to make the following
orders:
a. To reject all claims made;
b. To order Claimant to bear the costs of this arbitration, including any legal costs.
Matthew Murdock (Counsel for the Respondent)

Luis Srinivasan (Counsel for the Respondent)
Murdock Law Offices
th
5 Floor, Artemis Towers, Attorney at Law
Hell’s Kitchen, Gondor 163 Maupe Avenue
Kineska Capital City, Bharatstan
Tel (0) 872 8213; Telefax (0) 182 9172 Tel (0) 765 2431; Telefax (0) 765 2431 00
E-mail: dd.murdock@mlaw.com Luis.srinivasan@law.bh
RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 1
From: Joshua Lingard<joshua.lingard@smartcourier>
Sent: 1 February 2021, 6:09 a.m.
To: Sanjay Gandhi <S.Gandhi@VayuWind.bh>
Cc: Jamal Chowdhury <J. Chowdhury@VayuWind.bh>
Re: Shipment Itinerary
Dear Mr Sanjay,
I am writing to you regarding the contract dated 20 July 2020 for the sale of Sintered
Neodymium Magnet (SNM).
Kindly note that the shipment of the SNM blocks will generally involve a regular route
that we usually use for importing and exporting between Bharatstan and Kineska: The
shipment of SNM would first be delivered by cargo ship to Port Miyazaki of Nipponia,
an important transfer hub between Bharatstan and Kineska. The first cargo ship will then
transship the SNM container to a second cargo ship in Nipponia at Port Miyazaki, and
the second cargo ship will sail for Bharatstan from Nipponia. In Particular, please note
the following key dates with respect to the shipment:
• First cargo ship to depart from Kineska Port on 1 March 2021

• First cargo ship to arrive at Port Miyazaki, Nipponia on 7 March 2021
• The transshipment inspection to be conducted and finalized by the Nipponia Port
Authority on 9 March 2021
• The Cargo to be transferred to the second Cargo Ship by 13 March 2021
• Second cargo ship will depart from Port Miyazaki and head for Bharatstan on 14
March 2021
• Second Cargo ship will arrive on 21 March 2021, where the Claimant’s associate
will examine and accept the goods and arrange subsequent transferal.
Kindly note that we will notify you immediately, in any case within two business days
in the event of changes in the itinerary.
Kind regards,
Joshua
EXPERT WITNESS ON STANDARDS TO TEST RADIATION
I, Amari Bamba of 24, Thomas Street, Kings Landing, Westeros am a qualified mining engineer.
I provide engineering consultancy to the mining industry globally, in fields including (a) mine
design and engineering; (b) mineral process design and engineering; (c) mine to mill and process
optimization; and (d) mining technology. My role includes providing solutions in these fields for
projects with companies located worldwide. I hold a PhD in Mining Engineering from the Uni-
versity of British Columbia. I specialize in the uranium and related rare earth metal mining and
have been involved with more than 20 associated projects.
Given my experience in neodymium mining and associated experience in mine to mill operation,
I conclude that it is extremely uncommon to conduct radiation test on metal neodymium or neo-
dymium magnate. For one thing, up until now nobody realized that neodymium had a compara-
tively radioactive isotope. Besides, whichever level of radiation that neodymium might emit can
generally not penetrate the nickel anti-rusting layer in neodymium magnet. A general radiation
test, including alpha, beta and gamma rays on the metal neodymium would not have discovered
149
Nd, but it would have demonstrated an unusual emission of beta rays.
Whether or not the pollutant emission is tested depends upon the type of mine. Two types of
mines are usually the primary source of neodymium mining. Monazite, which is a reddish-brown
ore. is an important ore for neodymium, as well as thorium, lanthanum, and cerium. Monazite is
radioactive due to the presence of thorium and, less commonly, uranium. Bastnaesite ore, on the
other hand, is a yellowish-brown ore that has cerium, lanthanum and yttrium in its generalized
formula but also contains neodymium. Bastnaesite is usually not radioactive.
It is industrial practice that a general radiation test is usually conducted on the pollutant emission
for environmental purposes, especially when the ore is extracted from uranium or thorium rich
monazite mine. When the ore is extracted from non-uranium or thorium rich mines such as a
bastnaesite mine, there is usually no radiation test required for either the metal or the emission,
although mines are free to make their own quality control policies.
If radioactive test is performed on bastnaesite ores containing the newly discovered isotope 149Nd,
its radioactivity would have been discovered.
Amari Bamba
24, Thomas Street
Kings Landing, Westeros
NEWS REPORT ON THE UNPREDICTABILITY OF NO NUCLEAR POLICY
THE GLOBAL ENERGY TIMES
Overreaction and Overcompensation, Nipponia Legislation passes the world´s strictest regu-
lation against atomic energy.
In an unexpected move in 2021, the Nipponian Legislature published its Amendments of The
Peaceful Utilization Of Atomic Energy And The Protection Against Its Hazards Act, 1999, more
commonly known as No Nuclear Act on February 25. Largely seen as the reaction to the disas-
trous Fujimori Nuclear Power Plant leaking incident from last year, where 18,000 terabecquerel
(TBq) of radioactive caesium-137 were released into the Pacific during the accident, and in 2013,
30 giga-becquerel (GBq) of cesium 137 were still
flowing into the ocean every day.
The Amendments essentially abolished Nipponian

military and civil nuclear use project, closed its water
and airspace to nuclear powered vessels, and prohib-
ited the import of any radioactive material that emits
beta and gamma rays at rate of more than 5000 milli-
rem per year without a special permit being applied
and granted well in advance.
Nuclear experts all over the world are criticizing the
Act as an overreaction and delayed overcompensation
towards the incident, particularly its restriction on civilian use of radioactive substances, such as
CAT scanner and industrial gamma radiography.
“An absolute amateurish law this is” said Prof. Robert Oppenheimer, a leading nuclear physicist
from Harvard University. “This is the thinking of politicians instead of scholars and experts.
Nipponia is a highly industrialized economy and the complete cutting off radioactive material is
simply infeasible. It is one thing to phase out nuclear energy, it is another thing to completely
phase out radioactive material from daily life.”
Indeed, industrial conglomerates have already started to form lobbyist group to persuade an
amendment of the Act. Importers in particular wish lessening of the embargo, as the new cut-off
standard for radiation has been deemed to be too hard to achieve, and hundreds of containers
containing mild radioactive commodities largely considered to be easily controllable risks are
now impounded and subject to a lengthy waiting period for special committees of Ministry of
Energy to determine their fate. Such commodities range from smoke detectors to clocks to mag-
nets. Merchant ships have now been advised to avoid Nipponia as destination or transfer hub
until further notice.
LAW EXPERT ON BHARATSTAN’S ENERGY ACT, 2019

75116 Paris, France
Dear Madame President,
The above refers to the Claimant’s statement of facts in the recently filed proceedings in
VayuWind GmBH v. Long River Energy Incorporated, in which they claimed among other things
damages of varying nature with respect to alleged breach of contract for late delivery and non-
conformity which damages are by fact and opinion based on the Claimants loss of electricity
generation license and subsequent termination of a power purchase agreement with the state of
Bharatstan (not on record).
Th facts of the case are well highlighted in the statement of facts however, for ease of reference
a summary is as follows;
On 14 March 2021, a force majeure event arose when the Claimant’s shipment of SNM blocks
was impounded by the authorities of the state of Nipponia at the Port of Miyazaki for purposes
of inspection pursuant to the provisions of 25 February 2021 Nipponian Legislation amending
the existing Peaceful Utilization Of Atomic Energy And The Protection Against Its Hazards (No
Nuclear) Act, 1999 to introduce stringent provisions regarding the transportation of radioactive
isotopes into Nipponia. Evidently, the same was not anticipated as the SNM blocks were not
being transported into Nipponia and that the particular section of the port where the Shipment of
the Claimant’s SNM blocks were docked formed part of transshipment designated customs areas
where such inspections are usually not conducted. Subsequently, the Respondent notified the
Claimant of these developments in good faith and pursuant to the provisions of the contract. The
Respondent further took up the matter with the Nipponian authorities, procured the release of the
Shipment and effected delivery to the Claimant on 21 June 2021. The Respondent refused ac-
ceptance on the premise of a breach citing delay in delivery and alluding to the fact that failure
to meet the delivery scheduled agreed between the parties was not complied it. The Claimants
filed the proceeding before you, citing among other things the failure to deliver in time the SNM
blocks led to the cancellation of its electricity generation license by the state of Bharatstan and
subsequent losses as a result.
The Respondent avers that the force majeure events as well as any other subsequent activities
undertaken by the parties did not constitute a breach of the contract. The Respondent further
contends that in fact the entirety of the claim before this tribunal is based on another contract
between the Claimant and the state of Bharatstan. The Claimants refusal to accept delivery is
pegged on their loss of the license to generate electricity. To this, the Respond avers that the
claim and any damages sought should not be entertained by this tribunal as the claim arises from
a different. As a matter of fact, this tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this claim.
The Respondent refers to the recently enacted Bharatstan Energy Act, 2019 and in particular
Sections 17 and 18 states as follows (verbatim);
“17.There is established the Energy and Petroleum Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tri-
bunal for the purpose of hearing and determining disputes and appeals in accordance with this
Act or any other written law.
18. (1) The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters referred to it, re-
lating to the energy and petroleum sector arising under this Act or any other Act.
(3) The Tribunal shall have original civil jurisdiction on any dispute between a licensee and a
third party or between licensees.
(4) The Tribunal shall have appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the Authority and any
licensing authority and in exercise of its functions may refer any matter back to the Authority or
any licensing authority for re-consideration.
(5) The Tribunal shall have power to grant equitable reliefs including but not limited to injunc-
tions, penalties, damages, specific performance.”
On the basis of the foregoing, the Respondent argues that the basis of the Claimant’s grievances
can only be entertained and substantially determined by Energy and Petroleum Tribunal of state
of Bharatstan. In the event that this arbitral tribunal misguides itself by entertaining the Claimants
claim any further, the same should be limited to issues pertaining to this contract and not extend
its scope to matters beyond its jurisdiction in particular the claims and damages based on loss of
license or failure to meet its obligations under the power purchase agreement; a document the
Respondent is stranger to.
Yours faithfully,
Yusuf Gupta
Secretary to the Law Department (Retd.),
Government of Bharatstan
44, Oxford Street,
Capital City,
Bharatstan
By Email and Courier
15 October, 2021
1. Mr. Justice (Retd.) Alfonzo Alvarez

Chief Judge, Supreme Court of Espanos
121, Oxford Street, Greenview Hills,
Espanos – 121 281
Email: alavarez.j@mail.com
2. Mr. Richard Konrad, Q.C.

Chambers of Richard Konard,
Inner Temple, Westminster Alley,
Kyrat – 257 821
Email: konrad.richard@coldmail.com
3. Ms. Lucy Tyrell

Tyrell Johnson Rayder LLP
41, King Street,
Oceania – 872 929
Email: lucy.tyrell@tjr.com
4. Varun Maurya
Advocate at Law
33 Justice Avenue
Capital City, Bharatstan
Email: vmaurya@lawyer.me
5. Matthew Murdock
Murdock Law Offices
5th Floor, Artemis Towers,
Hell’s Kitchen, Gondor, Kineska
E-mail: dd.murdock@mlaw.com
SUB: CONFIRMATION OF NOMINEE ARBITRATORS AND APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT
In the Arbitration between
Dear Madame and Sirs,
The Secretariat draws your attention to the following decisions by the Court:
- The Court has appointed Mr. Justice (Retd.) Alfonzo Alvarez as President of the Arbitral
Tribunal (Article 12(5)).
- The Court confirms the appointment of Mr. Richard Konrad, Q.C. as co-arbitrator upon
Claimant’s nomination (Article 13(1) & (2).
- The Court confirms the appointment of Ms. Lucy Tyrell as co-arbitrator upon Respond-
ent’s nomination (Article 13(1) & (2).
Enclosed for your information are a copy of the curriculum vitae of Mr. Justice (Retd.) Alfonzo
Alvarez and his Statement of Acceptance, Availability, Impartiality and Independence.
Yours faithfully,
Counsel,
Secretariat of the ICC International Court of Arbitration
Attached:
Curriculum Vitae of Mr. Justice (Retd.) Alfonzo Alvarez (not reproduced)
Statement of Acceptance, Availability, Impartiality and Independence of Mr. Justice (Retd.) Al-
fonzo Alvarez (not reproduced)
PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 1
November 18, 2021

Before the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of:
Justice (Retd.) Alfonzo Alvarez (President)

Mr. Richard Konrad, Q.C.
Ms. Lucy Tyrell
VayuWind GmBH
~CLAIMANT~
v.

~RESPONDENT~
1. In accordance with Article 12 of the ICC Rules 2021, Mr. Justice (Retd.) Alfonzo Alvarez,
former Chief Judge, Supreme Court of Espanos, is appointed as the President of the Ar-
bitral Tribunal.
2. The Arbitral Tribunals notes the following facts:

i. The arbitration proceeding shall be governed by the ICC International Court of
Arbitration Rules, 2021.
ii. Kineska and Bharatstan are parties to the United Nations Convention on Interna-
tional Sale of Goods, 1998 (“CISG”).
iii. Kineska and Bharatstan have adopted the 1985 text of the UNICTRAL Model
Law on International Commercial Arbitration and both are parties to the Conven-
tion on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (“New
York Convention”).
iv. The seat of arbitration is Capital City, Bharatstan however the Tribunal is free to
decide the venue.
3. With the aforementioned facts in mind, both parties are invited to the preliminary con-
ference for discussions regarding scheduling and further procedures on December 18,
2021 at the International Arbitration Facilitation Centre, York Town Road, Capital City,
Bharatstan at 12:00 p.m.
Mr. Richard Konrad, Q.C. Ms. Lucy Tyrell

Nominee Arbitrator for the Claimant Nominee Arbitrator for the Respondent
Justice (Retd.) Alfonzo Alvarez

President of the Arbitral Tribunal
Luis Srinivasan
Attorney at Law
163 Maupe Avenue
Tel (0) 765 2431; Telefax (0) 765 2431 00
Luis.srinivasan@law.bh
November 28, 2021
1. Mr. Justice Alfonzo Alvarez

Nominee Arbitrator for the Claimant
3. Ms. Lucy Tyrell,
Nominee Arbitrator for the Respondent
4. Secretariat of the International Court of Arbitration
75116 Paris, France
SUB: REQUEST FOR REPLACEMENT OF CLAIMANT’S APPOINTED EXPERT
Dear Members of the Arbitral Tribunal,
Respondent has recently been notified that claimant´s party appointed expert on radiation test,
Prof. Dr. Carl von Welsbach has had prior connection with Fulgurite Capital, the third-party
funder of the Claimant´s present proceedings before ICC. Expecting biasness, Claimant request
the immediate replacement of Prof. Dr. Carl von Welsbach as expert witness.
Fulgurite Capital has been a regular donor to University of Heidelburg, where Prof. Dr. Carl von
Welsbach teaches and researches regularly. From 2010 to 2020, Fulgurite Capital has made 5
separate donations to University of Heidelburg, with the total amount of donation amounting to
2 million USD. In honor of Fulgurite Capital´s donation, a lecturer hall in the Department of
Chemistry, where Prof. Dr. Carl von Welsbach works, has been renamed Fulgurite Hall.
The aforementioned circumstances are valid reason to trigger justifiable doubts regarding the
independence and impartiality of Prof. Dr. Carl von Welsbach. Prof. Dr. Carl von Welsbach has
indirectly received funds from the third-party funder. The possibility of future donation from the
third-party funder means that the Professor will have a direct economic connection regarding the
outcome of the case.
In anticipation of Claimant´s response, even though Prof. Dr. Carl von Welsbach is the discoverer
of the isotope 149Nd, this did not make him a unique and irreplaceable expert witness. The issue
of his testimony concerns not only 149Nd but also the radiation test and standards employed in
the mining of neodymium. There are other acceptable experts with knowledge into the issue other
than Prof. Dr. Carl von Welsbach.
We reiterate that we request the immediate replacement of Prof. Dr. Carl von Welsbach as party
appointed expert witness.
Best regards,
Luis Srinivasan
Attorney at Law
163 Maupe Avenue
Tel (0) 765 2431; Telefax (0) 765 2431 00
Luis.srinivasan@law.bh
Varun Maurya
Advocate at Law
33 Justice Avenue
Capital City
Bharatstan
Tel (0) 123 4567; Telefax (0) 123 4567
vmaurya@lawyer.me
December 5, 2021
1. Mr. Justice Alfonzo Alvarez

Nominee Arbitrator for the Claimant
3. Ms. Lucy Tyrell,
Nominee Arbitrator for the Respondent
4. Secretariat of the International Court of Arbitration
75116 Paris, France
SUB: STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO REPLACEMENT OF CLAIMANT ’S APPOINTED EX-

PERT
Dear Members of the Tribunal,
Claimant strongly objects to the Respondent´s unjustified attempt to exclude Prof. Dr. Carl von
Welsbach from the present proceeding.
Prof. Dr. Carl von Welsbach as the discoverer of 149Nd is in a unique position to testify if the
Respondents violated industrial practice and if radioactivity of the SNM could or should have
been discovered, even if 149Nd has not been discovered at the time. No other figures in the scien-
tific community presently have much firsthand knowledge about 149Nd and its radioactivity. If
another scientist is chosen, they would have to rely on the Professor´s paper nonetheless.
Aside from that, while it is true that Fulgurite Capital is a regular donor to University of Heidel-
burg, the donation has always been directly to University of Heidelburg Endowment Fund, which
amounts to almost 42 billion USD, making Fulgurite Capital´s donation less than 0.004% of the
university´s total endowment. None of the donation was made directly to the Department of
Chemistry or the Professor´s lab directly. The University Board of Director is the one that deter-
mines the distribution of funds and approval for grant.
The naming of one lecturer hall after Fulgurite Capital is an independent decision of the Depart-
ment of Chemistry, in honor of Fulgurite Capital’s long time support to the industrialization of
chemical discoveries and support of chemistry majors in need of scholarships. Prof. Dr. Carl von
Welsbach was not involved in the decision regarding the naming of the lecture hall. Neither has
the Professor met with any personnel or representative of Fulgurite Capital until the current pro-
ceeding.
We reiterate that the replacement of Prof. Dr. Carl von Welsbach as party appointed expert wit-
ness is entirely unjustified and urge the ICC Standing Committee not to replace him as claimant´s
expert witness.
Best Regards,
Varun Maurya
ADVOCATE AT LAW
33 Justice Avenue
Capital City
Bharatstan
Tel (0) 123 4567; Telefax (0) 123 4567
vmaurya@lawyer.me
PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 2
December 15, 2021

Before the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of:
Justice (Retd.) Alfonzo Alvarez (President)

Mr. Richard Konrad, Q.C.
Ms. Lucy Tyrell
VayuWind GmBH
~CLAIMANT~
v.

~RESPONDENT~
1. The Tribunal has noted the broad dispute and the issues therein which require adjudica-
tion along with allegations raised by the Respondent against the Claimant’s appointed
expert and the response provided by the Claimant.
2. Written submissions on behalf of the claimant and the respondent shall be filed by 11.59
PM IST on April 01, 2022, by email to upes.parasdiwan22@gmail.com.
3. Both Parties are to attend the oral hearing scheduled virtually from 15th April, 2022 to
17th April, 2022. The detailed schedule for the same shall be shared prior to the hearing.
4. Parties shall address the following issues in their written submission and oral hearing:
a. Whether the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction over the present dispute due to the ex-
istence of Energy Tribunal?
b. Whether CISG is applicable due to the existence of service part of the contract?
c. Whether the Claimant’s appointed expert should be replaced?
d. Whether the amendments made by the legislature of Nipponia in the No Nuclear Act
amount to Force Majeure as provided under the SNM Agreement?
5. The submissions are to be made in accordance with the Official Rulebook of the Compe-
tition.
6. Clarifications regarding the Request for Arbitration, Response to Arbitration, any exhibits
and Procedural Orders shall be sought no later than 1 March, 2022 and shall be addressed
to upes.parasdiwan22@gmail.com.
Mr. Richard Konrad, Q.C. Ms. Lucy Tyrell

Nominee Arbitrator for the Claimant Nominee Arbitrator for the Respondent
Justice (Retd.) Alfonzo Alvarez


Case Record

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Record

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12TH UPES – DR.

PARAS DIWAN MEMORIAL

IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN

VayuWind GmBH v. Long River Energy Incorporated

ICC INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION RULES, 2021

15th April, 2022 ~ 17th April, 2022

UPES School of Law, Dehradun

REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION .......................................................................................................... 7

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................... 8

II. LEGAL EVALUATION ........................................................................................................... 12

III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................................ 14

CLAIMANT EXHIBIT 1 ...................................................................................................................... 15

CLAIMANT EXHIBIT 2 ...................................................................................................................... 22

CLAIMANT EXHIBIT 3 ...................................................................................................................... 23

CLAIMANT EXHIBIT 4 ...................................................................................................................... 24

CLAIMANT EXHIBIT 5 ...................................................................................................................... 26

RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF ARBITRATION ........................................................................... 28

III. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 30

IV. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF .............................................................................................. 31

RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 1 ................................................................................................................. 32

RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 2 ................................................................................................................. 33

RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 3 ................................................................................................................. 34

RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 4 ................................................................................................................. 35

COMMUNICATION BY THE ICC.............................................................................................................. 37

PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 1 ................................................................................................................... 39

By email and courier

SUB: NOTICE OF ARBITRATION

Dear Madame President,

On behalf of my client, VayuWind GmBH., I hereby submit a Commencement Request and

The required documents are attached.

Notice of Arbitration with Exhibits Power of Attorney (not reproduced)

Confirmation of Payment of Registration Fee (not reproduced)

By Email & Courier

REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION

(Pursuant to Article 4 of the International Court of Arbitration Rules, 2021)

In the Arbitral Proceedings between

VayuWind GmBH v. Long River Energy Incorporated

Represented by Varun Maurya, Advocate at Law

Long River Energy Incorporated

20. The Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction.

21. The SNM Sales Contract contained an arbitration clause stating:

5.2. It is hereby agreed that:

a) The seat of the arbitration shall be Capital City, Bharatstan;

b) There shall be three (3) arbitrators;

c) The language of the arbitration shall be English;

III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Varun Maurya (Counsel for the Claimant)

From: Jamal Chowdhury <J. Chowdhury@VayuWind.bh>

Sent: 1 June 2019, 8:25 am

To: Isabella <Isabella.kim@longriverenergy.ki>

Cc: Sanjay Gandhi <S.Gandhi@ VayuWind.bh>

Re: Purchase offer

Sent: 9 July 2019, 6:09 a.m.

To: Sanjay Gandhi <S.Gandhi@VayuWind.bh>

Cc: Jamal Chowdhury <J. Chowdhury@VayuWind.bh>

Re: Contract Documents

Attachment: SNM Sales Contract

Dated 20 July 2020

Signed by the parties

For and on behalf of VAYUWIND GMBH

For and on behalf of LONG RIVER ENERGY INCORPORATED

EXPERT OPINION OF PROF. DR. CARL VON WELSBACH

Prof. Dr. Carl von Welsbach