-
-
Mr. Enzo Isetta (CEO SensorX) was born on 15 June 1964. After receiving my degree in engineering, I started to work for
SensorX in 1992 and have held different positions in the company over the years. Since
1 January 2014, I have been the CEO of SensorX. -
Respondent submitted 22 different purchase orders under the Framework agreement and Claimant delivered more than 5 mln sensors without any problems
p.5 (p.10) -
Framework Agreement is to regulate the future supply of Respondent with Claimant's sensors
-
Since the meeting, the price for the coming year has always been fixed at tthe beginning of December of the previous year.
Claimant informed Respondent that it would prefer larger orders and was willing to give an additional discount of 1% for any order above 1 mln units. -
The Respondent notified the Claimant about the incident
-
Claimant was concerning about Respondent's cyberattack
-
Email 28 August 2020 – 11:38 a.m.
-
Most of attacks in 2022 were unsuccessful and detected by our excellent cybersecurity
defense system which had been considerably strengthened in 2021 through additional firewalls
and regular training of our employees. That is particularly
embarrassing for SensorX whose new
cybersecurity officer had in an article in
December 2021 praised the new
cybersecurity concept implemented by
SensorX. (Equatoriana news) -
P.O. №9601 Price: USD 32.00 per unit (on the basis of the price formula agreed between the Parties on
1 December 2021 for larger orders) -
Claimant’s cybersecurity officer gave a long interview in December 2021 in which
he praised the new cybersecurity system which Claimant had implemented shortly before in
reaction to several successful ransom attacks on competitors -
Product(s): L-1 Sensor
Quantity: 200,000 units
Delivery Dates: 7th Calendar Week (14 – 18 February 2022)
Price: USD 24,000,000.00
6. Payment Terms:
• USD 12,000,000.00: 30 Days after delivery
• USD 12,000,000.00: 90 Days after delivery
ARBITRATION: All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract;
Rules of ICC, CISG
The Rules on Emergency
Arbitration are explicitly excluded.
The place of arbitration is Danubia -
"As far as we have been able to reconstruct
the circumstances, one of our account managers in the sales department must have opened an
infected email in breach of all security guidelines, allowing trojan horse malware to enter our
system." - Witness Statement of Mr. Enzo Isetta -
Product: S4-25899
First Installment of 600,000 units: 14th Calendar Week
Second Installment of 600,000 units: 22nd Calendar Week
Price: USD 32.00 per unit
DR: ARBITRAGE (ICC RULES), place - Vindabona, Danubia, CISG, English -
-
-
-
The real Ms. Telsa Audi's Holiday, she was absent for 10 days (p.6 par.15)
-
-
Mr. Royce, the person responsible for the relationship with Claimant who wanted authorization to pay to a new bank account in Danubia had approached to William Toyoda for advice
-
He showed me her answer his email, she pointed out that in the past the Parties had
normally treated the form requirement pragmatically and confirmed that Claimant would
consider the exchange of emails to be sufficient to fulfill the writing requirement. As an alternative she offered to wait with the authorization of the shipment until she returned to work, and a written amendment could be prepared by her. That would have involved a delay of at least
two weeks. - Witness Statement ofToyoda -
Purchase Order NO 9601
p.6 (p.13) -
The Respondent wil not make the payment of the second installment of the payment (A-15604)
-
19.200.000 USD according to Clause 6 for the P.O. NO 9601 were not paid
P. 6 (p.14) -
Respondent is ordered to pay Claimant USD 38,400,000, with simple interest at the annual
rate of 4 % on the amount of 19,200,000 from 4 May 2022 onwards, and on the amount of
19,200,000 from 1 July 2022 onwards; -
"As a consequence of that and with the support of the governmental cybersecurity unit we engaged
in a major security check of all our systems which took us over a month. During that time our entire accounting, payment and ordering system was handled largely manually on the basis of an isolated accounting software and spreadsheets." Witness of Statement CEO SensorX -
It had to be thoroughly investigated and sanitized, due to cyberattack in the early parts of the year
-
Purchase Order NO A-15604
-
-
Purchase Order NO 9601
P.6 (p.13) -
19.200.000 USD according to Clause 6 for the P.O. NO 9601 were not paid
P. 6 (p.14) -
-
Respondent is ordered to pay Claimant USD 38,400,000, with simple interest at the annual
rate of 4 % on the amount of 19,200,000 from 4 May 2022 onwards, and on the amount of
19,200,000 from 1 July 2022 onwards; -
P. 6 (p. 15)
-
No payments received. Found by Mr. Gustaf Gabrielsson
-
With the letter Claimant complained to Respondent that the payments were not received. Set a deadline for payment by the following week - THERE IS NO SUCH TERM IN THE LETTER (EXHIBIT C3)
Р. 6 (р. 17) -
With the letter Respondent submitted an email which allegedly had been sent by Claimant asking for payment to a new bank account
P. 6 (p.18) -
Claimant’s Mr. Enzo Isetta and Respondent’s Ms. Mercedes Ford. They remained without any result concerning the resolution of the dispute.
P. 7 (p.20) -
Joseph Langweiler is the advocate of the Claimant. He hereby submit the Request for Arbitration
-
The parties: SensorX plc v. Visionic Ltd
-
Court of Arbitration of the ICC receipt the Request for Arbitration. The arbitral proceeding (arbitrage) have commenced on 9 June 2023
(p.19) -
Joseph Langweiler is SensorX's advocate.
SensorX plc hereby nominates Dr. William Chevy, Geely-Street 12 Capital City, Mediterraneo as its arbitrator. -
The Secretariat encloses a copy of the Statement of Acceptance, Availability, Impartiality and
Independence, as well as the curriculum vitae of Dr William Chevy, who Claimant has
nominated as co-arbitrator. -
-
-
-
Julia Clara Fasttrack is Respondent's advocate.
Respondent nominates as its arbitrator
Mr. Victor Klement, Rue Peugeot 3, Oceanside, Equatoriana. -
-
-
-
-
Purchase Order NO A-15604
-
-
-
Head of Sales of SensorX
-
-
-
Quite to the contrary, during the meeting Respondent informed Claimant that it would
terminate the Framework Agreement, as it had planned to purchase sensors from 1 July 2023
onwards from one of Claimant’s competitors.