Considering that:

1. The Tribunal decided in Procedural Order No. 4 to consult the parties to fix a date to hear the parties on the objections to its jurisdiction raised by

Respondent

2. Claimant proposed in its communication of November 18, 2009 a bifurcated hearing whereby the Tribunal would hear first oral argument whether any of Respondent’s jurisdictional objections are “maintainable or proper as a mater of law without any need to resolve any disputed questions of fact.” Only if the Tribunal would determine that one or more of Respondent’s objections are properly maintainable as a matter of law would the Tribunal hold a subsequent evidentiary hearing.

3. In a communication dated November 24, 2009, Respondent objected to Claimant’s proposal, inter alia, because “its jurisdictional objections are inextricably intertwined with certain facts and thus the legal issues involved can only be evaluated with reference to those facts.”

4. The parties exchanged further comments through communications dated November 25 and November 30, 2009.