American Arbitration Assoc-ICDR India Johnson, Thomas Ventrone, Inna Yelyashkevych ICDR Case Dropped by ICDR after Article 28 Waiver filed New York New York

ICDR New York, VP Thomas Ventrone, failed to respond to this Article 28 Waiver. Three emails and ten days later Thomas Ventrone, finally emailed that Inna Yelyashkevych, Esq. International Case Counsel, would be removed from the case. However, ICDR never responded to the actual notice. Two days later ICDR drops the case after all fees were paid and while in the administrative phase.There appears to be no laws that allow such conduct. ICDR refused to explain their actions and they failed to cite any law or policy. Thus employees are subjected to ICDR's acts which clearly benefit the employer.

--------------------------------

Jacob Wallace Al Khobar, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 31952

Saturday, 25 July 2015

American Arbitration Association International Centre for Dispute Resolution 120 Broadway, 21st Floor New York, NY 10271

B3H Corporation 51 3rd Street, Bldg 1 Shalimar, Florida Case: Jacob (Jake) Wallace V. B3H Corporation - Case 01-15-0003-7901

RE: Article 28: Waiver Complainant is promptly stating objection to the ex parte communication between the ICDR administrator and Respondent’s counsel on or about 10:00 am, Friday, July 24, 2015. Ex parte communication is not authorized except as outlined in ICDR’s, Arbitration Information Worksheet. ICDR’s technical glitches interfered with two attempted calls to Claimant, for a scheduled administrative conference. The administrative conference was not immediately concluded, and ICDR and Respondent’s counsel conferred, where they privately developed a strategy that is a detriment to Claimant. ICDR’s apparent decision, and prior inability to not have a conference call benefits Respondent. Oddly, and please explain, Respondent’s counsel and not the ICDR administrator emailed Claimant after the two parties conversed to inform Claimant of ICDR’s decision. Claimant seeks relief in the form of the removal of this particular administrator. This is not to say that the administrator knowingly violated the Rules or worse, colluded with Respondent to undermine Claimant. However, the ex parte communication Rule appears to have been trampled by the very institution entrusted to honor it. Irregardless, the mere appearance of impropriety is enough for the administrator’s removal. In addition, Respondent is bidding for a new multi-million dollar US defense contract this year in Saudi Arabia, and the findings of this case could impact that bidding process. Respondent, who has already acted poorly, is highly motivated to usurp the facts. Furthermore, Claimant filed an Article 6, Emergency Relief, petition that the administrator apparently appropriately nixed. Respondent filed a response and the administrator suggested Claimant answer without providing any information or reason why an answer was solicited or necessary at that juncture. Jacob Wallace