Credit: SP/Adobe Stock

Ricardo E Barreiro Deymonnaz
Barreiro Abogados, Buenos Aires

There is some debate in the dispute resolution community regarding the coexistence of dispute adjudication boards (DABs) and emergency arbitration (EA) in multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses in construction contracts.^[1] The discussion centres on the powers both mechanisms hold to order temporary interim and conservatory measures, and on the perception that the interaction between these two dispute resolution systems may lead to issues of competence or admissibility of claims.

This article explores the nature of EAs and DABs, highlighting similarities and differences in purpose. It also discusses admissibility criteria for requests of interim and conservatory measures, differentiates procedural structures and scopes, and raises some questions that hopefully will contribute to the existing debate.

Emergency arbitrator

Overview

The EA procedure is intended for urgent applications that need immediate redress. This mechanism is available to any contract of all industries adopting arbitration rules, such as those of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC),^[2] the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR)^[3] and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA),^[4] to settle disputes, and not only in construction, as is primarily the case for DABs.

EA’s nature is both contractual and jurisdictional.^[5] It is contractual because the parties have agreed under a contract to submit their disputes to arbitration pursuant to specific rules and procedures, and it is jurisdictional because EA acts as a quasi-judicial figure to resolve urgent matters before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.

The legitimacy of EA stems from its foundation in international law, institutional arbitration rules and its recognition under local law in some jurisdictions,^[6] which may facilitate enforcement. This leaves aside jurisdictions that adopted the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law^[7] and the discussion on whether interim relief orders issued by EA are enforceable under the New York Convention.^[8] This ensures that the measures granted by EA may be enforced through legal systems, providing a critical safeguard for parties in international disputes where time-sensitive relief is essential.

Interim measures under ICC Rules.

ICC Arbitration Rules (the ‘Rules’) provide that EAs are entitled to render ‘urgent interim or conservatory measures that cannot await the constitution of an arbitral tribunal’ at the request of an aggrieved party and define those as ‘Emergency Measures’.^[9]

The Rules do not define or clarify the nature, scope or application of these Emergency Measures, nor do they specify what EA can order within the framework of their emergency powers.

The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2021 provide valuable guidance. Article 17 of the Model Law and Article 26 of the Rules define interim measures as:

‘any temporary measure […] by which, at any time prior to the issuance of the award by which the dispute is finally decided, the arbitral tribunal orders a party to: (a) maintain or restore the status quo pending determination of the dispute; (b) take action that would prevent, or refrain from taking action that is likely to cause, current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process itself; (c) provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied; or (d) preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute’.

EA’s nature implies that Emergency Measures tend to align with the interim and preliminary relief traditionally handled by arbitral tribunals and courts of justice, albeit with notable limitations.

On the one hand, Emergency Measures in arbitration typically aim to safeguard the subject matter, preserve the effectiveness of the procedure and award, and address specific concerns, like asset protection, maintaining the status quo or preventing irreparable harm.^[10] However, they remain confined to the contractual framework of the arbitration.

By contrast, courts of justice generally have a broader scope, as they can normally grant interim measures within both contractual and extra-contractual contexts. For instance, a court can order the attachment of assets, the suspension of administrative actions, arbitration or judicial proceedings, or issuing injunctions or seizures, even if these measures are not directly related to the disputed contract. Furthermore, courts have greater flexibility in adapting measures to the specific circumstances of each situation, as may be the case with so-called self-satisfying or innovative interim measures available in some jurisdictions.

The enforceability of interim measures issued by an emergency arbitrator largely depends on the recognition granted by local laws to provisional arbitral decisions. While many jurisdictions, particularly those that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law, recognise and enforce interim measures issued by arbitrators, not all national legal systems provide precise mechanisms for executing EA’s orders. This can create a practical issue: even though the measures are binding on the parties, their coercive enforcement may require validation by a court of law, introducing the risk of delays or even outright rejection.

By contrast, interim measures issued by courts of justice are generally inherently enforceable, as the state’s coercive power backs them. Courts can mobilise state resources, such as law enforcement or administrative bodies, to ensure compliance with their orders. This provides immediate certainty and effectiveness that EA measures do not inherently possess.

Obtaining interim measures from EA

Under the Rules, the emergency measures process offers a streamlined method to address urgent situations before an arbitral tribunal is constituted. A party must submit a written request to the ICC Secretariat detailing the specific emergency measures sought, the urgency of the situation and supporting evidence. The Secretariat reviews the application promptly and, if admissible, appoints an emergency arbitrator within two days,^[11] ensuring a rapid response to time-sensitive needs.

Once appointed, the emergency arbitrator conducts expedited proceedings that balance the urgency of the matter with fairness, allowing both parties a brief opportunity to present their cases through written submissions, virtual hearings or other suitable formats. Unlike many judicial courts, where interim measures are often granted without hearing the opposing party (inaudita parte), this process aligns with the UNCITRAL Model Law and national arbitration laws, ensuring due process.

The emergency arbitrator is required to issue a decision within 15 days,^[12] unless the ICC Secretariat grants an extension or it is agreed upon by the parties. This decision is binding, yet does not affect the final arbitral tribunal’s ruling, as the tribunal retains complete independence to decide on the merits and any subsequent provisional measures, emphasising the temporary nature of the emergency measures.

The framework raises concerns about the interaction between EA interim measures and those issued by national courts, as provided under Article 29.7 of the 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules, especially when orders conflict or parties attempt to use judicial decisions to undermine EA measures. The absence of a uniform enforcement framework for EA decisions could lead to challenges, as some legal systems might prioritise local court orders or require enforcement through the court of justice.

DABs

Overview of DABs

DABs are increasingly critical for ensuring robust, effective, and efficient dispute management and resolution in construction contracts, and their role has been significantly enhanced through international guidelines and best practices.^[13] They provide a neutral experience to tackle problems proactively as they arise to avoid disputes, prevent conflict escalation, cost overruns and disruption and, most importantly, ensure project continuity.

DAB decisions and orders are fundamentally contractual,^[14] meaning that their authority and scope derive directly from an agreement between the parties. As a result, they become contractual obligations that the parties must comply with, in the same way as any other contract clause.

DABs are normally taken as permanent or ad hoc in construction works, especially under FIDIC or NEC contracts, or other types of contracts, including dispute board rules. Permanent DABs are introduced at the project’s outset and remain involved throughout its execution, while ad hoc DABs are activated when a dispute arises.

The DAB’s contemporaneity with the project and its deep knowledge of issues relating to the works, particularly when they are permanent, are key elements that should be carefully considered when assessing its role concerning interim and conservatory measures.

FIDIC model contracts

FIDIC model contracts include DAB provisions in its Red, Yellow and Silver books. The Red Book, for example, notes that ‘the Parties shall jointly appoint the member(s) of the DAAB.^[15] Within the time stated in the Contract Data (if not stated, 28 days) after the date the Contractor receives the Letter of Acceptance’,^[16] and emphasises that ‘[t]he DAAB proceeding shall not be deemed to be an arbitration and the DAAB shall not act as arbitrator(s)’.^[17]

NEC model contracts

DABs in the NEC model contracts reflect the framework’s emphasis on collaboration and proactive dispute resolution. Unlike FIDIC contracts, where DABs are more prescriptive and dispute resolution, in general, may depend on a three-step process (engineer, DAB and arbitration), the NEC approach integrates adjudication or DABs as part of a flexible and cooperative dispute management process through a set of optional clauses identified as ‘W Clauses’.^[18] NEC contracts encourage early engagement and dialogue, with DABs often playing a preventive role before disputes escalate. This aligns with NEC’s core principles of fostering trust, mitigating risks and promoting effective communication between parties.

It is worth noting that, while FIDIC model contracts typically provide for their own DAB procedural rules, NEC model contracts, which were initially drafted to include mandatory adjudication under the United Kingdom Construction Act as a dispute resolution option, tend to include ICC Dispute Board rules when internationalised.

Interim measures under DABs

DAB Procedural Rules under FIDIC model contracts, ICC Dispute Board Rules and other dispute board rules used internationally provide that DABs are empowered to order interim or conservatory measures. However, as in the case of EAs, neither of these rules and procedures clearly define the exact meaning and scope of the interim and conservatory measures that a DAB can order.

This lack of definition in both systems often leads to interpretative conflicts when determining the scope of authority for interim measures issued by a DAB and EA, particularly when both systems coexist within multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses.

In contrast to the typical scope of Emergency Measures under EA, interim and conservatory measures sought before a DAB may involve the temporary suspension of the application of penalties or orders for the removal of key personnel; execution of emergency works to prevent disasters or damage; instructions for continuing work or to access the site; preservation of items; and payment orders, among others. These measures are related to the contractual ecosystem and, in general, have as their primary objective the continuity of the works, the preservation of cashflow and the avoidance of disruption.

A DAB decision, including one dealing with interim or conservatory measures, is binding upon the parties immediately, meaning that the parties must comply with it until the same DAB potentially overturns it at a later stage in the process, or through arbitration or litigation. For a DAB decision to be reviewed, and potentially overturned, by an arbitral tribunal or a court of justice, one of the parties must submit a Notice of Dissatisfaction (NoD) within the applicable contractual timeframe (eg, 28 days from decision issuance under the FIDIC Red Book^[19]). If no NoD is submitted, the DAB decision becomes binding and final, effectively closing the matter without further recourse.

By contrast, EA decisions are binding, but lack finality, as they are inherently temporary and subject to potential termination if a request for arbitration has not been submitted within ten days of initiating EA,^[20] and subject to review and modification, termination or annulment by the arbitral tribunal.^[21] Unlike DABs, EAs operate within the procedural arbitration framework and do not require an equivalent to a NoD to trigger further proceedings. The distinction lies in the contractual nature of DAB decisions versus the jurisdictional framework of EAs, making DABs integral to maintaining project continuity, whereas EAs serve broader protective purposes.

The concepts of ‘binding’, and ‘binding and final’ in the context of DAB decisions often generate debate, as they directly impact enforceability and the possibility of advancing the dispute to further stages. This matter may become more complex when dealing with interim or conservatory measures ordered by a DAB, as may be evidenced by the following questions: Can or must a party submit a NoD against an interim or conservatory order issued by a DAB, to prevent it from becoming final? What would the effect of the NoD be in that context? Could a party resort to EA to review and obtain an interim measure that overrides a provisional measure ordered by the DAB?

The answer to the first question is that a party does not need to submit a NoD against an interim or conservatory order issued by a DAB because its nature is essentially temporary. Such an order will be confirmed or left without effect with the DAB’s final decision on the matter. At that point, any unhappy party will have the contractually afforded term to submit the respective NoD, enabling access to arbitral or judicial review at a later stage.

Many construction contracts stipulate that if NoDs have been submitted against DAB decisions throughout the project, all those challenged decisions may be reviewed in a single arbitration after the project’s completion. This approach can be beneficial when the goal is for the parties to focus all their efforts on advancing the project (which may even involve working to reconcile their differences) rather than investing time and resources in conducting arbitration in parallel to the project’s execution or, even worse, suspending the project while arbitration is underway.

This means that, whenever a NoD is submitted, all challenged DAB decisions will be revised after the project is completed. But does this prevent a discomforted party from resorting to EA to seek emergency revision and potentially overriding a DAB conservatory measure?

Given its jurisdictional nature, EA may have the authority to issue interim measures that supersede the DAB’s decision, particularly if EA determines that urgent and irreparable harm would result from enforcing the DAB’s order. However, this could create procedural conflicts and undermine the contract and the role of the DAB, which is designed to address disputes within the project framework.

Consequently, I believe that when a party disagrees with an interim measure ordered by a DAB, the most reasonable approach would be to express its disagreement when responding to the statement of case (potentially even registering it as a NoD at that time, even if not strictly necessary as mentioned above). Subsequently, the disagreeing party could submit the formal NoD if the DAB’s final decision is also unsatisfactory. In this way, the contractual terms agreed upon by the parties for resolving their disputes would be upheld while preserving each party’s rights regarding the aspects they disagree with.

Obtaining interim measures from DABs

DAB procedures are generally more flexible and informal than EA procedures, even though DABs must still adhere to certain procedural and contractual guidelines. This inherent flexibility and informality are aligned with the DABs primary role in preventing disputes from arising or escalating, making it a fundamental aspect of the system.

Unlike Emergency Measures, which have a specific procedure set forth under ICC Arbitration Rules, there is no interim or conservatory measures procedure provided for under FIDIC model contracts or ICC Dispute Board rules. In both cases, the rules indicate that the DAB has the power to decide on any provisional relief, such as interim or conservatory measures and that the parties must include any such request in their statement of the case.

Because there are no special guidelines related to interim or conservatory measures in the procedure applicable to DABs, except for what is mentioned in the preceding paragraph, it seems reasonable to assume that they can only be requested in the context of a formal submission. This implies that the DAB will be aware of the entire context of the dispute and its supporting documentation while addressing the request for protective measures from one of the parties. This is a significant difference from EA, as EA only focuses on resolving the interim measure, and the main arbitration action must be initiated within ten days from the date the interim measure request is submitted to avoid the EA procedure from being terminated, as noted above.

When a request for interim measures is made within the framework of a formal submission to the DAB, it must urgently make a decision regarding the request. However, the ICC Dispute Board Rules specify that anyone initiating a formal submission must simultaneously notify both the DAB and the other party by sending or providing all documentation they rely on. This means that the party against whom the requested interim measure is directed becomes aware of the request at the same time as the DAB and the ICC rules grant the respondent 30 days to present its response, which must include, as it was noted, ‘a statement of the issues on which the responding Party requests the DB’s Conclusion, including any request for interim or conservatory measures’.^[22] However, this 30-day period seems to overlook that urgency is a key characteristic of any protective request, making it notoriously excessive, especially when compared to the emergency procedures outlined in the ICC Arbitration Rules, which are much shorter.

In this context, one of the DAB’s essential functions becomes particularly relevant: ensuring the continuity of the project, with a special focus on its cashflow, thus avoiding interruptions and delays attributable to conflicts between the parties.

In that context, one of the powers granted to DABs under ICC Dispute Board Rules is particularly useful: ‘take any measures necessary for it to fulfill its function as a DB’.^[23] Considering the inherent urgency of the interim measure request and the short deadlines provided in the ICC rules or FIDIC contracts for resolving and deciding a dispute before a DAB, my interpretation is that the DAB has an obligation to address the interim measure request with urgency. Accordingly, the DAB could request additional information from the applicant to better understand the situation and decide whether to grant the requested measure as submitted or with some modification, all without immediately involving the opposing party, that is, inaudita parte.

This is particularly relevant considering that Article 20 of the ICC Dispute Board Rules stipulates that the response to the statement of the case (ie, the document that initiates the formal submission process before a DAB) must include a ‘statement of the issues on which the responding Party requests the DB’s Conclusion, including any request for interim or conservatory measures’. In any case, that response could serve as the appropriate opportunity for the party against whom the interim measure is directed to express its position on the matter and, if necessary, submit a NoD regarding the DAB’s interim or conservatory decision.

Once the interim measure has been granted, the respondent may present its position in its answer to the statement of case within the 30-day period. Once the response is received, the DAB can review the interim measure granted in light of the responding party’s arguments. It may confirm, modify or rescind it, if deemed appropriate, always acting in the project’s best interest.

Any different approach, which may include providing for a mini substantiation procedure of the interim measure request by allowing the counterparty an opportunity to present its position or even admitting an impromptu presentation by the counterparty against the requested measure, would openly exceed what is provided under FIDIC or ICC dispute board rules and create a ‘process within a process’ situation, with all the problems and negative aspects that may arise from it, all of which can significantly delay the formal submission procedure and distort the DAB mechanism, jeopardising its credibility and independence.

The range of situations that can give rise to requests for interim protection in the context of DABs is as diverse as the projects and contracts themselves. While it could lead to an interesting case analysis, it far exceeds the scope of this article. For reference, it is worth noting that some of the most common requests are related to the suspension of penalties; requests for payments that are blocked due to particular circumstances; conflicts related to the appointment or removal of key personnel; issues concerning access to the work site; or matters related to insurance and guarantees.

The scope of the interim measures that can be requested before a DAB may seem broader than EA’s. However, this is only partially true, as this supposed breadth is confined to the ecosystem of the contract and the project within which the DAB must operate.

On the other hand, EA’s jurisdictional nature would grant it the authority to rule not only on measures or preliminary actions (eg, the production of evidence in advance, securing evidence in the possession of the counterparty or third parties etc) but also on those interim measures expressly provided for in the applicable legislation for the contract (generally, injunctions, measures to maintain status quo etc).

Therefore, it seems clear that the DAB and EA have a well-defined and differentiated scope of action regarding interim and protective measures. This can be quickly clarified by answering the following question: Which of the two systems is better positioned to analyse and resolve, with the required urgency, the requested protective measure, considering the nature of the matter and the level of prior knowledge of the context that gives rise to it?

The previous discussion logically assumes that we are dealing with a case presented to a permanent DAB that is constituted in time and fully operational. However, extraordinary situations may arise in the context of a contract that provides for the action and decision of a DAB as a preliminary procedure to arbitration. One of these could be that the parties failed to establish a permanent DAB in a timely manner or that, otherwise, the DAB is not fully operational (due to the resignation of its sole member or two members in a three-member DAB) so that it is unavailable to address a dispute when it arises. The other situation could be that the contract provides for the involvement of an ad hoc DAB, meaning a DAB that is constituted and comes into function only when a dispute arises.

In either of these two special situations, it is evident that the DAB is not available to address the request for interim relief from one of the parties and that, in the best-case scenario, the constitution and functioning of an ad hoc DAB could take much longer than logically expected to resolve an urgent request. Therefore, in these scenarios, the only possible solution is for the request for interim protection to be made before EA.

Comparison: DABs vs EAs

As we have seen, one of the most significant differences between DABs and EAs lies in their jurisdiction and scope.

DABs are typically limited to disputes arising from the contract or project, making them highly specialised for construction-related issues. They are integrated into on-site project management, offering rapid and often informal responses tailored to the immediate needs of ongoing construction projects. Their decisions are informed by a deep technical understanding, as mandated by FIDIC, which requires that DAB members possess significant expertise in construction. This specialised knowledge allows DABs to make decisions that are contextual and informed by the specific details of the project, ensuring that the unique circumstances and relationships between the parties are considered. Additionally, because permanent DABs are established at the project’s outset and remain involved throughout its execution, they offer the advantage of immediacy, often resolving disputes in real time and at lower costs due to fewer formalities.

By contrast, EAs have a broader jurisdiction and apply to a wider range of commercial disputes beyond the narrow confines of construction projects. They operate within the formal arbitration process, where the need for urgency is balanced with strict procedural rigour. The ICC’s EA process is designed to address emergencies swiftly, although the procedure can take a couple of weeks to complete under the ICC Arbitration Rules. While EA decisions are also binding, their enforceability may depend on subsequent jurisdictional support, which varies according to local legal recognition.

Coexistence of DABs and EAs

Role in multi-tiered dispute resolution

Multi-tiered clauses, such as those in FIDIC or NEC contracts, aim to establish a step-by-step process to promote early and efficient dispute resolution. In this framework, the DAB acts as the initial mechanism for dispute resolution, with the authority to issue binding decisions that the parties must comply with immediately. This is without prejudice to their ability to challenge such a decision through a NoD, allowing for a review in a subsequent arbitration. After these steps are exhausted, arbitration becomes available, ensuring a structured and sequential process.

Introducing EA under the applicable arbitration rules (eg, ICC Rules) creates tensions regarding the hierarchy and admissibility of interim relief requests. Specifically, the key question is whether EA can act before the DAB has issued a decision, given that multi-tiered clauses designate the DAB as the first level of dispute resolution.

The DAB’s decision as a condition precedent

Establishing a DAB as a condition precedent to arbitration^[24] has a clear contractual foundation: the parties voluntarily agree to submit disputes to a DAB before escalating them to higher instances. Fulfilling these conditions is not merely a formality; it has significant practical implications. On the one hand, it ensures that disputes are addressed efficiently and directly within the project’s context, avoiding immediate recourse to costlier or more formal mechanisms. On the other hand, it guarantees that the parties exhaust the agreed-upon processes before seeking more intrusive or disruptive measures, such as those that EA can grant.

However, this condition raises particular challenges when a party requires immediate interim measures. If the DAB’s decision or the necessary process to obtain it has not been completed, one could argue that arbitration, even EA, is premature. This raises the question of whether EA can act without the DAB first addressing the matter.

Admissibility of requests before EA

Several factors determine EA’s ability to act before the conditions precedent to arbitration have been fulfilled.

The nature of the interim relief requested must be considered first. If the measure sought is directly related to the DAB’s scope (eg, orders to ensure project cashflow), it would be reasonable to argue that the DAB should have priority over EA. However, if the measure involves aspects beyond the DAB’s scope, such as protecting off-contract assets or safeguarding procedural rights, EA may be justified in intervening.

Second, the inherent urgency of the request and risk of irreparable harm may justify EA’s intervention, even if the DAB has not made a decision, provided that the measure is necessary to prevent irreparable harm or to avoid rendering the parties’ rights illusory.^[25]

2021 ICC Arbitration Rules do not exclude the possibility of EA acting in urgent situations, even when prior mechanisms like the DAB exist. This was not the case in the 2012 and 2017 rules, which excluded EA when the parties had agreed to another pre-arbitral procedure providing for granting interim or conservatory measures, such as DABs.^[26] However, in these cases, EA may require the party to demonstrate why the DAB process is not viable or sufficient in the specific context.

Allowing EA to act without the DAB issuing a decision poses significant risks. It could weaken the effectiveness of multi-tiered clauses, undermine the DAB’s role as a preliminary dispute resolution instance and may lead to jurisdictional conflicts, especially if the parties interpret the conditions precedent to arbitration differently.

Admissibility criteria for interim or conservatory measures

In arbitration, interim and conservatory measures are generally admitted based on institutional rules, past arbitral practices, and national and/or international legal principles that consider issues such as urgency, irreparable harm, proportionality and likelihood of success.^[27] In some jurisdictions, these criteria are interpreted restrictively, meaning that granting conservatory measures is always exceptional and temporary.

These criteria are also relevant to interim relief requests made before DABs, but they should be applied with a more practical focus that aligns better with the DAB’s role and scope in construction projects.

Urgency is just as important for DABs as it is in arbitration, but in the DAB context, urgency usually means addressing immediate threats to the project or its cashflow, such as delays, safety issues, site access, or other issues that could cause disruption or additional costs. Similarly, the need to prove imminent and irreparable harm in the context of a DAB is often related to harm that could interfere with the project’s timeline or cashflow or create significant disruption.

As regards the likelihood of success, DABs typically look at whether the facts and claimant’s arguments are strong enough to justify the requested measure without delving too deeply into the merits of the case, a task that is reserved for other stages of the process. The focus is on practical and contractual issues, ensuring that the requested measure aligns as much as possible with the contract terms and makes general sense under the applicant’s overall arguments, always trying to ensure project continuity. This is closely related to proportionality, as DABs need to carefully weigh the impact of their decision on the project’s progress and the parties’ rights under the contract.

In essence, while the same general principles apply in the context of DABs, these criteria must be adapted to meet the DAB’s specific purpose and the needs of construction projects. Their decisions focus on what’s practical and necessary to keep the project moving while balancing the interests of both parties.

Conclusion

DABs and EAs are both relevant to interim and conservatory measures. However, they serve different purposes.

DABs are creatures of contract and relate to disputes that arise during the construction works, aiming to solve these disputes as they emerge. Their involvement from the very beginning gives them a contemporaneous appreciation of the whole project, which makes it possible for them to issue practical and specific measures aimed precisely at preventing disruption and loss of cashflow.

EAs, on the other hand, operate under rules of arbitration and provide dispute resolution power and interim relief within jurisdictional boundaries. Hence, they are capable of dealing with urgent and extreme situations well beyond the scope of DABs.

Because their scopes of work are different, DABs and EAs are not competitive in the same way; instead, they can be used together, DABs dealing with disputes that arise within the course of a project and EAs dealing with disputes in such cases where DABs are unavailable or are inadequate. It is this comprehensive appreciation of the mechanisms that helps parties avoid inappropriate and excessive burden on one of them and, instead, utilise both systems, which have different strengths, to resolve disputes promptly without risking the enforceability and uninterrupted operations.

Ricardo E Barreiro Deymonnaz is a partner at Barreiro Abogados in Buenos Aires. He can be contacted at rbarreiro@bodlegal.com.