Austrian Yearbook - Walbert
Austrian YearbookonInternational Arbitration 2017The EditorsChristian Klausegger, Peter Klein, Florian Kremslehner,Alexander Petsche, Nikolaus Pitkowitz, Jenny Power,Irene Welser, Gerold ZeilerThe AuthorsLisa Beisteiner, Klaus Peter Berger, Tobias Birsak, Stavros Brekoulakis,Katharina Brückner, Yuliya Chernykh, Giuditta Cordero-Moss,Dietmar Czernich, Chloë Edworthy, Eliane Fischer, Ulrike Gantenberg,Jonas von Goeler, Diego Brian Gosis, Wolfgang Hahnkamper,Heidrun Halbartschlager, Christoph Hauser, Michael Hofstätter,Emmanuel E. Kaufman, Judith Knieper, Christopher Koch, Ulrich Kopetzki,Wolfgang Kühn, Innhwa Kwon, Michael McIlwrath, Reza Mohtashami,Corinne Montinieri, Helmut Ortner, Vladimir Pavi , Silvia Petruzzino,Gunnar Pickl, Sylwester Pieckowski, Jarred Pinkston, Nikolaus Pitkowitz,Roman Prekop, Katharina Riedl, Markus Schifferl, Dorothée Schramm,Yoanna Schuch, Alfred Siwy, Alexandra Stoffl, Selma Tiri , Ezequiel H. Vetulli,Michael Walbert, Irene Welser, Stephan Wilske, Mathias Wittinghofer,Venus Valentina Wong, Rabab M.K. YasseenWien 2017MANZ’sche Verlags- und UniversitätsbuchhandlungVerlag C.H. Beck, MünchenStämpfli Verlag, Bern
To be cited as:Author [first and last name], Title of Work, in AUSTRIAN YEARBOOK ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 2017 [first page on which work appears, pincite](Klausegger, Klein, Kremslehner, Petsche, Pitkowitz, Power, Welser & Zeilereds., 2017)DisclaimerNo part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmittedin any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,without prior written permission of the publisher. Permission to use this content must beobtained from the copyright owner. Please apply to: Manz’sche Verlags- undUniversitätsbuchhandlung, Kohlmarkt 16, 1010 Vienna, Austria.While all reasonable care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this publication,the publisher cannot accept responsibility for any errors or omissions. The views expressedby the authors are entirely their own, unless otherwise specified, and do not reflectthe opinions of the publisher, editors or their respective law firms.ISBN 978-3-214-00777-5 (Manz)ISBN 978-3-406-70943-2 (Beck)ISBN 978-3-7272-7776-4 (Stämpfli) 2017 MANZ’sche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung GmbH, ViennaTelephone: 43 1 531 61-0E-Mail: verlag@manz.atwww.manz.atData Conversion and Type Setting: Zehetner Ges. m. b. H., 2105 OberrohrbachPrinted by: FINIDR, s. r. o., Ceský T½šín
IntroductionThe 2017 edition of the Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration isthe 11th edition of the Yearbook, which has developed in the course of 10 years toa standard reference work for the arbitration sector. The editors are proud to havecreated a medium where arbitration practitioners and academics discuss hot topics and interesting developments in arbitration and from which the readers cangain inspiration and new ideas that might help to solve a specific problem.The present edition contains contributions of 53 authors and co-authorsand addresses current trends discussed in the arbitration community. Quite anumber of contributions deal with the theme of the 2016 Vienna Arbitration Days“Predictability” by examining some of the topics in even greater breadth anddepth.The article “The Vienna Predictability Propositions” sets out seven distinctproposals to enhance predictability in international arbitration which were developed during the World Café Discussion Rounds led during the Vienna Arbitration Days. These Vienna propositions, presented by 27 contributors contain practical advice and thoughtful recommendations from the wealth of experience ofthe international arbitration community and are intended as a guidance to the international arbitration community for best practices to be applied to secure a predictable conduct of the arbitral process.Other contributions deal with dispute resolution in M&A transactions, thearbitrator’s duty to disclose and the applicable law, just to pick out a few topics byway of example only.We are grateful for each contribution contained in this Yearbook and hopeyou will find the 2017 edition of the Yearbook to be an essential tool and up-todate reference in your arbitration library.Vienna, January 2017The Editors
OverviewChapter I The Arbitration Agreement and ArbitrabilityStavros Brekoulakis/Jonas von GoelerIt’s all about the Money: The Impact of Third-Party Funding on Costs Awardsand Security for Costs in International ArbitrationEliane Fischer/Michael WalbertEfficient and Expeditious Dispute Resolution in M&A TransactionsDietmar CzernichThe Theory of Seperability in Austrian Arbitration Law – Is it on Stable Pillars?Ezequiel H. Vetulli/Emmanuel E. KaufmanDeciding who decides: Issues arising out of the Failure to fulfil Pre-ArbitrationRequirementsChapter II The Arbitrator and the Arbitration ProcedureStephan Wilske/Chloë EdworthyThe Predictable Arbitrator: A Blessing or a Curse?Wolfgang HahnkamperBias, Conflict and Challenge of Arbitrators, and their Duty to disclose:Austrian Supreme Court Decisions in the period 2006–2016Reza MohtashamiTowards Procedural Predictability in International Arbitration:Confronting Guerrilla TacticsNikolaus Pitkowitz and 26 co-authorsThe Vienna Predictability Propositions: Paving the Road to Predictabilityin International ArbitrationIrene Welser/Alexandra StofflThe Use and Usefulness of Scott SchedulesSilvia PetruzzinoRelevance and Applicability of Trade Usages in International ArbitrationWolfgang KühnProcedural Tools in Support of Predictability in International Arbitration
VIOverviewChapter III The Award and the CourtsHelmut Ortner/Yoanna SchuchHow to apply the applicable Law in International ArbitrationMathias WittinghoferThe Race towards Predictability: Does it threaten the Effectivenessof modern Arbitration?Markus Schifferl/Valentina WongDecisions of the Austrian Supreme Court on Arbitration in 2015 and 2016Chapter IV Investment ArbitrationDiego Brian GosisRemedies in Investment Arbitration: How to Redress Expropriation ClaimsIndex 2007–2017
Table of ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IIIOverview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VThe Editors and Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIIChapter I The Arbitration Agreement and Arbitrability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stavros Brekoulakis/Jonas von GoelerIt’s All About The Money: The Impact Of Third-Party Funding On Costs AwardsAnd Security For Costs In International Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III. Awarding Of Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. Should A Prevailing Funded Party Be Able To Recover Party CostsAt All Where These Costs Have Been Funded By A Third Party? . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. What Amount And Type Of Recoverable Can A Prevailing Funded PartyRecover? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. Can Arbitral Tribunals Render Costs Orders Directly Against Third-PartyFunders? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III. Security For Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. Financial Situation Of The Claimant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. Investment Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. Additional Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Third-Party Funding As Abuse Or Bad Faith? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. Commercial Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. Additional Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Application To Third-Party Funding Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a) Conclusion Of Funding Agreement As Material ChangeOf Circumstances? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .b) Broader Fairness Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV. Outlook: Increasing Interest For Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1334678910101012141415151617Eliane Fischer/Michael WalbertEfficient And Expeditious Dispute Resolution In M&A Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21III. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III. Pre-Signing Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. Typical Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. Dispute Resolution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. Litigation v. Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Fast-Track Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a) A Need For Speed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .b) What Is Fast-Track Arbitration? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .c) Too Much Speed May Kill The Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .d) Institutional Rules For Fast-Track Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21222223232424242526
VIIITable of Contents3. Emergency Arbitrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a) Urgency v. Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .b) Interim Relief In International Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .c) Institutional Emergency Arbitrator Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .d) ICC Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. Drafting Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. Fast-Track Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III. Pre-Closing Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. Typical Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. Dispute Resolution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. Fast-Track Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Dispute Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. Emergency Arbitrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. Drafting Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. Fast-Track Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Dispute Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV. Post-Closing Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. Typical Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. Validity And Rescission Of The Transaction Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Purchase Price Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. Representations, Warranties & Indemnities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. Dispute Resolution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. Expert Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a) Distinction Between Arbitration And Expert Determination . . . . . . . . . .b) Expert Determination Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .c) Binding Nature And Enforceability Of Expert Determinations . . . . . . . . .2. Fast-Track Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. Drafting Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. Fast-Track Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Expert Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0424344454545454647Dietmar CzernichThe Theory Of Seperability In Austrian Arbitration Law – Is It On Stable Pillars? . . . 49III. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III. The Theory Of Seperability In International Arbitration Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. Notion and Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. The Rule In The Uncitral Model Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III. The Theory Of Seperability In Austrian Arbitration Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. Rejection Of Art 16 Of The Uncitral Model Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. Jurisprudence Of The Austrian Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. Drawbacks On Relying On The Parties Intentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV. Practical Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49505051515153555657
Table of ContentsIXEzequiel H. Vetulli/Emmanuel E. KaufmanDeciding Who Decides: Issues Arising Out Of The Failure To Fulfill Pre-ArbitrationRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59III. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III. The Questions Before The Arbitrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. What Is The Nature Of Pre-Arbitration Requirements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. The Difference Between “Admissibility” And “Jurisdiction” . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. In Which Category Do Pre-Arbitration Requirements Fall? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. How Should The Parties’ Consent Be Interpreted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. Is There Any Solution When The Parties’ Intention Remains Unclear? . . . . .B. May Pre-Arbitration Requirements Be Bypassed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. Does The Nature Of Pre-Arbitration Requirements Impact The PossibilityTo Bypass Them? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. When May Pre-Arbitration Requirements Be Bypassed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. What Have Arbitral Tribunals Ruled So Far? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III. Are The Arbitrators’ Decisions “final”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV. Questions Before The State Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. What Is The Standard Of Court Review? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. Should The Arbitrators’ Categorization Of Pre-Arbitration RequirementsBe Reviewed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59606060626365656566676869707273Chapter II The Arbitrator and the Arbitration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Stephan Wilske/Chloë EdworthyThe Predictable Arbitrator: A Blessing Or A Curse? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77III. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III. The Dangers Of Arbitrators’ Predispositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. No Doctrine Of Binding Precedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. Varying Levels Of Adherence To (Outdated) Substantive Law In Issue . . . . . . . .C. Does The Outcome Follow The Legal Reasoning Or Vice Versa? . . . . . . . . . . . . .D. The Chemistry And Exercise Of Influence Within The Arbitral Tribunal . . . . . .E. When A Beneficial Predisposition Is Not Beneficial Anymore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III. The “Auto-Pilot” Arbitrator v. The “Tailor-Made” Arbitrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. The Arbitrator’s Predictable Ability To Be Case-Specific:Not Necessarily A Contradiction In Itself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. The Arbitrator’s Unprecedented, But Tailor-Made Approach ToThe Specifics Of A New Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV. Predictably Good Not Predictably Bad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. Predictable Honesty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. Predictable Diligence And Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. Predicable Exercise Of Time And Cost Consciousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV. Conclusion And Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .777980818283838485868687888990
XTable of ContentsWolfgang HahnkamperBias, Conflict and Challenge Of Arbitrators, And Their Duty To Disclose:Austrian Supreme Court Decisions In The Period 2006–2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91III.III.III.IV.Update – Procedural Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Update – Deadlines And Other Aspects Of Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
International Arbitration 2017 The Editors Christian Klausegger, Peter Klein, Florian Kremslehner, . date reference in your arbitration library. Vienna, January 2017 The Editors. . Towards Procedural Predictability in International Arbitration: Confronting Guerrilla Tactics Nikolaus Pitkowitz and 26 co-authors
pea green manure, Austrian winter pea harvested, summer fallow and spring barley in northern Idaho (Table 1). They found the agronomic benefit of Austrian winter pea harvested was similar to Austrian winter pea green manure, but the economic benefit of Austrian winter pea harvested was greater because it could be sold as a crop.
Glossary and curriculum alignment. HOW TO YEARBOOK EXPLORE OUR COMPREHENSIVE CURRICULUM. 3 WELCOME TO THE HERFF JONES YEARBOOK FAMILY. By now, you probably know your rep and have that number on speed dial. But did you know you’re part of a network of yearbook advisers, who all
will assure that a production schedule can be kept and your yearbook can be printed in time to ship and arrive at your school by the date you need it. If you submit your pages after your deadline, your yearbook may need to be rescheduled and ship later than you planned. As a yearbook adviser you are in total control of your book submission.
Visit the "Yearbook" page or the "Seniors - Class of 2020" page for details on how to submit. Quotes: All quotes will be approved by yearbook adviser before submission in the yearbook. Questions regarding yearbook or senior photos? Call Mrs. Jones or Ms. Dawson at ZHS or Leonard’s Photography 1-800-215-4852 www.leonards.com
MIDDLE SCHOOL YEARBOOK SALE To order your 2016-2017 Middle School yearbook go to the following website: ybpay.lifetouch.com. Enter the Yearbook ID code 11056517 and then follow the easy on screen ordering instructions. The cost is 18.00 and all major credit cards are accepted. The Middle School will not be handling any yearbook payments.
Alamosa HS Yearbook First Place Academics Spread Hitting the Books Kelli Jo Wilson Alamosa HS Yearbook First Place Clubs/Organizations Individual Photo and Caption Yearbook Working Hard Lora Ortega, Kelli Jo Wilson, Zaq Bernal, Selena Villalva, Raygen Abeyta Alamosa HS Yearbook Second
Yearbook is a yearlong, team project where you'll learn about book and page design, photography, feature story writing and media ethics. The yearbook features all of the students in the school, from pre-kindergarten to high school. Yearbook is diff
Accounting The Accounting programme is written by Niall Lothian, formerly Professor at Edinburgh Business School, Heriot-Watt University, and John Small, Professor Emeritus at Heriot-Watt University. Both have previously occupied chairs in the University’s Department of Accountancy and Finance.
