Dr Jose Luis Cavalieri.net

Red mundial de asesores de negocios especializada en servicios juridicos contables, adquisiciones, fusiones y otras transacciones transfronterizas



LBMA The London Bullion Market

Only refiners whose bars have been accredited by the LBMA as meeting the minimum standards for trading on the London market appear in the Good Delivery List.

The LBMA produces Good Delivery Lists for gold and silver bars; detailing the names of accredited refiners, their listing date and the marking details of their bars. Because of the stringent assaying and bar quality criteria that applicants must satisfy to attain accreditation, the Lists are universally recognised as the de facto standard for the quality of gold and silver bars.

The List is used by many markets and exchanges for defining, in whole or in part, the deliverable brands within their jurisdictions. Recently, a number of exchanges have become licensed for this use.

Current gold and silver Good Delivery Lists

The Current Lists show refiners of gold and silver whose large bars were found to meet the required standard when originally tested. Listed refiners are proactively monitored on a three-year cycle to ensure that their assaying and refining capabilities continue to meet the required standard. In addition, the refiners’ financial and refined production data is reviewed annually.

It should be noted that inclusion in the Current list does not constitute or imply any representation or warranty by the LBMA as to creditworthiness or as to the services or goods supplied or quality or compliance with any specification relating thereto. No liability for direct or consequential loss, howsoever caused, whether by negligence or otherwise, whether by use of this list or reliance thereon, is accepted by the LBMA. If a bar bears more than one assay stamp, the lowest figure will be taken.

Former gold and silver Good Delivery Lists

The Former Lists include:

Refiners who no longer produce bars at the locations listed;

Refiners whose bars are no longer accepted as Good Delivery by the London Bullion market;

Bars whose brand mark has been changed (in which case the current brand mark is described in the Current Gold or Silver List).

Assayer-only companies which were previously granted Good Delivery status. Refiners are now expected to have the ability to assay as well as refine to the required standard.

However, bars produced by these refiners prior to their transfer to this list on the date given below continue to be acceptable as Good Delivery. The LBMA reserves the right to de-list bars after an appropriate period of time in cases where production has ceased.

Changes to the List

When a current refiner makes a change to its bar, either in terms of dimensions or markings, the existing list entry is replaced by the revised version, with the older version being transferred to the Former List. The Former List contains entries of both transfers of a particular bar produced by a Good Delivery refiner and also that of the refinery itself when its bars are no longer considered acceptable in the London Bullion market.

The Good Delivery Rules set out every aspect of the Good Delivery administration including the specification standards for London-traded gold and silver bars.

The Good Delivery Rules provides information for existing refiners and the banks that work with them, as well as the necessary guidance for refiners seeking accreditation.

Only bars that meet Good Delivery standards are acceptable in the physical settlement of a loco London gold or silver transaction. The high level of consistency within the London market is maintained by ensuring both refiners and vaults implement the Good Delivery Rules relating to a bar's assay, weight and its safe handling and stacking. The main specifications for GD gold and silver bars are summarised below. No other refined gold or silver products produced by accredited refiners fall within the scope of the Good Delivery Lists.

Click here to view the full set of Rules to find out more

Specifications for a Good Delivery Gold Bar

Specifications for a Good Delivery Silver Bar

Provision of Self-Testing Samples

Annex H also shows how to derive London gross troy ounce weights rounded to the nearest 0.1 or 0.025 troy ounces for silver and gold respectively. Please click here to download an excel spreadsheet including the same.


It is essential that all GD bars contain the amount of metal stated by the marked assay as marked on the bar and its weight. Assays of GD bars are determined by the refiner at the point of manufacture. An assay is likely only to be checked again when a bar is used as raw material in a refinery, for example, for the manufacture of small bars or in a plant manufacturing products like jewellery.

Pro-active Monitoring

The LBMA ensures that the highest possible standards are maintained by testing the ability of all Good Delivery refiners to assay accurately on a three-yearly cycle for its Proactive Monitoring Programme (PAM). Details of a refiner's recent activity for PAM can be viewed in the Good Delivery Lists.

Vault Managers Working Group

The Vault Managers Working Group, comprising the Bank of England and representatives from those LBMA members with their own vaulting facilities in London, meet regularly to consider issues relating to bar quality and vault procedures. Vault Managers are required to document every case of bar rejection and provide the associated information to the LBMA Executive.

Changes to the Good Delivery Rules

To view details of recent changes made to the Good Delivery Rules click here. This document sets out the changes made to the Rules between 2007 and 2013. The first edition of the Good Delivery Rules was published by the LBMA in 1993. Prior to that, at various times during the 20th Century, the London Gold Market produced booklets containing earlier versions of the rules pertaining to the Good Delivery of bars.

Good Delivery Applicants

Refiners wishing to apply for Good Delivery Status should read carefully the current version of the GDL Rules. Please refer to the FAQs on Good Delivery for further details. Please contact gdl@lbma.org.uk if you have any questions about the application process.

The LBMA comprises and represents the key players and their clients in the bullion market, which is centred in London but which has an international footprint. It is not an Exchange like the LME on which contracts for base metals are traded.

The current membership of the LBMA includes more than 140 companies including refiners, fabricators, traders as well as those providing storage and secure carrier services. We represent these members, and through our maintenance of and publication of the Good Delivery List, set the benchmark for gold and silver metal bars across the world.

Origins of the LBMA

The LBMA was established in 1987 by the Bank of England, which at this time was the bullion market's regulator. The LBMA took over the roles previously carried out by two separate organisations, the London Gold Market and Silver Market, whose origins date back to the mid-nineteenth century.

The on-going work of the Association covers setting and monitoring refining standards, creating trading documentation and fostering the development of good trading practices. The LBMA's main role is the maintenance and publication of the Good Delivery Lists for gold and silver, which are universally acknowledged as the de facto standard of quality assured and assayed bullion. The LBMA Brochureprovides further information about the work of the LBMA.

Since its inception in 2000, the LBMA's annual Precious Metals Conference has been the premier professional forum for the world's precious metals market. Following the conference in Singapore on 16-18 October, 2016, the next in the series of conferences will take place in Barcelona on 15-17 October, 2017.

The LBMA also produce other publications, most significantly the Alchemist, the LBMA's quarterly journal, which contains articles of general interest to all participants in, and observer's of the bullion market. It is available free of charge from the LBMA Executive.

The LBMA Good Delivery List is widely recognised as representing the de facto standard for the quality of gold and silver bars.

Good Delivery List

In the refining industry, accreditation on the LBMA Good Delivery List is widely recognised as the benchmark standard for the quality of gold and silver bars, due to the stringent criteria that an applicant must satisfy. In 2004 the LBMA introduced a system of regular proactive monitoring of refiners on the List, an important initiative which further enhanced its reputation and those refiners it listed. The List is used by many precious metals exchanges around the world to define in whole, or in part, the refiners whose gold and silver bars are accepted in their own markets.

The London Bullion Market

The London Bullion market has a long and colourful history which precedes the formation of the LBMA. For more information on the history of the London Bullion market, the role of the LBMA and other key participants within it, click on the link About the Bullion Market, in the Useful Links dialogue box on the right hand side of this page.

International Commercial Contracts


The parties’ contractual freedom is not unlimited



The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)

The International Chamber of Commerce

The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT)

The Hague Conference on Private International Law





The problems arising from the lack of uniformity

The Rome Convention of 1980 and the Rome I Regulation (593/2008)

Private international law rules and international arbitration


Which criteria will be used for the determination of the applicable law?

The criteria contained in the Rome Convention

The criteria contained in Rome Regulation

The main problem for business: lack of predictability


The principle of freedom of choice

Cases where the freedom of choice is limited

Special problems: exclusion of mandatory rules; dépeçage

How to draft the choice of law clause


“Simply” mandatory rules and “internationally” mandatory rules

National laws implementing European directives: the Ingmar case

Application of internationally mandatory rules by courts (and arbitrators)


The theory of lex mercatoria

UNIDROIT Principles

The combination of lex mercatoria and UNIDROIT Principles


Choice of the law of its own country

Lex mercatoria and similar solutions

Not choice at all




The choice between arbitration or ordinary jurisdiction Mediation and ADR

The ICC Mediation rules



The fundamental principles of the Convention

The arbitrability issue

Problems arising in connection with public policy


The distinction between ad hoc and institutional arbitration

Arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules

Institutional arbitration


The ICC International Court of Arbitration and the Secretariat

The ICC arbitration rules

The costs of ICC arbitration


The formal requirement of the arbitration clause: agreement in writing

The essential elements of an arbitration clause

Some typical errors frequently found in arbitration clauses

The optional elements of the arbitration clause D





The rules on international jurisdiction

Choice of jurisdiction clauses

The rules regarding lis pendens


Exclusive choice of court agreements

Recognition and enforcement


Choice of forum in favour of its own courts

Exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses

Drafting choice of forum clauses

Formal requirements of jurisdiction clauses

Effectiveness of the choice of forum clauses

The trend towards self-sufficient contracts

Oral and written contracts

Letters of intent and similar documents

Identifying the legal framework where the contract is to be situated

Establishing a draft in view of the negotiation


The approach to negotiation

The ICC Principles to facilitate commercial negotiation

The role of the lawyer in the course of negotiation

The recourse to local lawyers

Responsibility of the parties during negotiation

Agreeing upon special rules for negotiation


The trend towards common drafting standards

The basic requirements of a well-drafted contract

Drafting techniques commonly used in international contracts

The language of the contract


Force majeure


Penalty/liquidated damages

Requirement of written form for modifications

Partial nullity

Non-waiver clauses

Clauses excluding liability for consequential damages


The domestic rules of formation of contracts and resulting problems

Rules on the formation of contracts in the CISG and UNIDROIT Principles

Conclusion of contracts and general conditions

Effectiveness of clauses contained in general conditions

Clauses governing the entry into force of the contract


The ICC International Centre for ADR offers three distinct services relating to experts and neutrals. They include: proposal of experts and neutrals; appointment of experts and neutrals; and administration of expert proceedings. In these instances, ICC is chosen to administer and supervise the entire expert proceedings.


The proposal of an expert or a neutral may serve various purposes that are not only limited to disputes. Parties might wish to obtain an expert opinion on an issue of importance in the ordinary course of business or they might want to call upon a neutral to facilitate their negotiations. An expert may also be required as a potential expert in arbitration or other dispute resolution proceedings. In such cases, a party may unilaterally request ICC to propose the name of an expert or a neutral. No other person will be informed of this request unless the requesting party explicitly asks ICC to do so. A neutral may be needed to act as a mediator, a dispute board member or to assist in resolving a dispute not administered by ICC. A proposal is not binding on the requesting party or parties and ICC’s involvement ends with the delivery of the proposal.


When disputes arise, parties might wish to have an expert appointed by ICC to decide on a particular issue. For example, on the valuation of shares or the quality control of a manufactured good. Or they might have agreed on a dispute resolution procedure for which they need a neutral to act as mediator, but cannot agree on the person to fulfil this role. An appointment by the Centre is binding on the parties. The Centre’s involvement ends upon completion of the appointment process. It does not extend to the administration of the ensuing expert proceedings, which is the subject of a separate set of rules.

Administration of expert proceedings

When faced with differences or in dispute, parties may require an expert to give findings on specific issues. In addition to appointing an expert or confirming an expert nominated by the parties, the Centre’s role covers supervision of the proceedings. This includes such tasks as coordinating between the parties and the expert; monitoring deadlines; overseeing costs; and unless explicitly excluded, scrutinising the draft expert report. It is the Centre that notifies the report to the parties at the end of the proceedings. The expert’s findings may be useful to the parties when negotiating a settlement of their dispute or differences. Although in principle they are not binding, parties may—if they wish and subject to applicable law—agree to give the findings the force of a contractually binding expert determination.


ICC Mediation is both adaptable and private. What’s more, anyone is able to the settlement technique—whether a company, state, state entity, international organisation or individual.

Mediation is a flexible and consensual technique in which a neutral facility helps the parties reach a negotiated settlement of their dispute. The parties have control over the decision to settle and the terms of any agreement. Settlements are contactually binding and widely enforceable.

The mediation process is designed to give parties a better understanding of each other’s business needs. As such, each can look for a win-win solution that upholds their respective interests. The result always remains in the parties’ hands, which reduces potential risks that are so often associated with other forms of dispute resolution.

Mediation is a useful approach when parties in dispute have an ongoing relationship that they wish to preserve, such as a joint venture or long-term supply contract. With mediation, this is possible whereas there is unlikely to be any legal basis for seeking such relief in arbitration or litigation.

All ICC Mediations are administered by the ICC International Centre for ADR and follow the ICC Mediation Rules. Just as the Court is the only body empowered to administer proceedings under the ICC Rules of Arbitration, the Centre is the only body entitled to administer proceedings under the ICC Mediation Rules.


Our rigorous approach, efficient processes and practical rules that cover every contractual issue have made us the leading arbitral institution. With teams across the globe, we stand ready to help you at any stage of your dispute.

ICC Arbitration assures the best quality of service. That’s because it is delivered by a trusted institution and a process that is recognised and respected as the benchmark for international dispute resolution. From straightforward sales contracts to intellectual property matters, joint ventures, share purchase arrangements or state-financed construction projects—whatever the case—we can assist in resolving disputes of all sizes.

Anyone can benefit from ICC Arbitration’s flexibility and effectiveness. The only requirement is that parties to a contract, treaty or separate arbitration agreement need to consent to use ICC Arbitration. This is handled through a contract or treaty before a dispute arises. However, it may happen after a dispute has taken place as well.

While maintaining strict neutrality, our Secretariat and other regional offices are available via telephone or email to answer questions. Although we are happy to provide information, all Secretariats’ work is strictly confidential. Neither we nor any part of ICC will disclose information concerning a case except to those involved.

Unrivalled in experience and expertise, we are a leading international arbitration institution. We administer ICC arbitrations, overcome obstacles in proceedings and strive to ensure ICC awards are enforceable.

Like all ICC dispute resolution services, we base our arbitration solutions on rules that follow international best practice. We update these rules regularly and translate them into many languages to stay current with today’s business needs. We have made these rules short, adaptable and simple for use in virtually any type of procedure.


When disputes related to trade finance instruments occur, we offer a specialised method that is confidential, quick and cost-effective called Documentary Instruments Dispute Resolution Expertise (DOCDEX).

Parties may file a Request for a DOCDEX Decision for any dispute relating to:

a documentary credit;

a standby letter of credit;

a bank-to-bank reimbursement;

a collection;

a demand guarantee or counter-guarantee;

a forfaiting transaction,

a bank payment obligation (BPO); or

any other trade finance-related instrument, undertaking or agreement.

DOCDEX is a preferred dispute resolution method because of litigations unlimited costs. Depending on the amount in dispute, DOCDEX proceedings are capped at US$5,000 or US$10,000. What’s more, even in exceptional cases, the International Centre for ADR (“Centre”) will only charge an additional fee of US$2,500 or US$5,000.

You can feel confident that you receive a thorough analysis and well-considered conclusion with DOCDEX. Cases are decided by a panel of three impartial experts having extensive experience in, and knowledge of, trade finance transactions. These experts are specially selected from a list maintained by our ICC Banking Commission. A Technical Adviser nominated by the Commission then personally reviews each decision to certify that it is in line with ICC Banking Rules and/or international trade finance practice standards. The entire process usually takes between two and three months, compared to years with court proceedings.

DOCDEX Decisions are kept private and rendered in English. They are not binding unless the parties have otherwise agreed and are not arbitral awards. However, anonymised DOCDEX Decisions are widely distributed to enable practitioners to avoid common errors leading to disputes while at the same time preserving confidentiality.


Dispute boards are permanent panels set up to accompany the performance of a contract. They also assist in avoiding or overcoming disagreements and disputes. As such, we provide a variety of tools and support for establishing and operating three types of dispute boards to minimise impact and enhance trust between parties.

A Dispute Board (“DB”) is a standing body composed of one or three DB Members. Typically set up upon the signature or commencement of performance of a mid- or long-term contract, they are used to help parties avoid or overcome any disagreements or disputes that arise during the implementation of the contract. Although commonly used in construction projects, DBs are also effective in other areas. These areas includes research and development; intellectual property; production sharing and shareholder agreements.

The ICC Dispute Board Rules (“Rules”) consist of a comprehensive set of provisions for establishing and operating a DB. They cover such matters as the appointment of the dispute board member(s); the services they provide and the compensation they receive.

DBs have three basic functions. They emphasise the importance of informal and formal approaches to disputes. The Rules explicitly provide that, upon perceiving a potential disagreement, the DB may identify the disagreement and encourage the parties to resolve it on their own without further involvement of the DB. If this is impossible or the disagreement is too entrenched, the DB can intervene with informal assistance to help the parties resolve the matter by agreement. Alternatively, the DB could also determine a dispute through a recommendation or a decision issued after a procedure of formal referral. Each of these functions is of equal importance in helping to reduce the risk and cost of disruption to the parties’ contract.

The Rules give parties a choice between three types of DB—each of which are distinguished by the type of conclusion it issues upon a formal referral. Dispute Adjudication Boards (DABs) issue decisions that must be complied with immediately. On the other hand, Dispute Review Boards (DRBs) issue recommendations that are not immediately binding on the parties. However, become so if no party objects within 30 days. Finally, Combined Dispute Boards (CDBs) offer an intermediate solution between DRB and DAB. They normally issue recommendations but may also issue decisions if a party so requests and no other party objects or the DB so decides on the basis of criteria set out in the Rules. There is a contractual obligation to comply with recommendations and decisions—when so required—by disallowing objections on the merits as a defence to non-compliance and through explicit use of the terms “final” and “binding.”

Parties wishing to use the Rules are advised to include an appropriate clause in their contract. For this purpose, ICC proposes three standard ICC Dispute Board Clauses (“Clauses”)—providing respectively for the three DB types. In addition, ICC proposes a model Dispute Board Member Agreement, covering such matters as the DB Member’s undertaking and remuneration, as well as the duration of the agreement.

Appointing authority

Parties using arbitration have a choice between designating an institution, such as ICC, to administer it, or proceeding ad hoc outside an institutional framework.

In ad hoc cases, the arbitration will be administered by the arbitrators themselves. Should problems arise in constituting the arbitral tribunal, the parties may require the assistance of a state court or ICC as appointing authority, if so empowered by an arbitration clause, a subsequent agreement of the parties.

To provide this service, ICC applies a special set of rules. These Rules of ICC as Appointing Authorityhave been in force as of 1 January 2004. They are designed for use in proceedings under UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and in other ad hoc proceedings.

Appointing the suitable arbitrator

In arbitration, one of the key steps is the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. While this gives the parties the opportunity to designate arbitrators of their choice, special care is required to ensure the independence and competence of the persons chosen, particularly in international proceedings.

ICC can select the suitable arbitrator thanks to its global network. This enables the parties to have their disputes resolved by people who have specialised competence in the relevant field.


Any request for the appointment or the challenge of an arbitrator should be accompanied by a payment to ICC of US$3,000. This payment is not refundable.

If the ICC is designated as appointing authority, the ICC International Court of Arbitration® will be responsible for handling all requests, irrespective of the authority within ICC that is requested to act as appointing authority.

When acting as appointing authority under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, the ICC International Court of Arbitration® will in general continue to use the list-procedure referred to in those rules. However, should the list-procedure prove to be inappropriate in a particular case, the ICC Court may proceed otherwise.

In both UNCITRAL and other ad hoc proceedings, in addition, to making appointments, the ICC International Court of Arbitration® may have other powers, including the power to decide upon challenges of arbitrators, whether or not appointed by ICC.

The Rules of ICC as Appointing Authority entered into force on 1 January 2004. They provide a transparent and cost-effective procedure for enabling parties to benefit from ICC’s expertise and experience in ad hoc arbitration.

Dr Jose Luis Cavalieri.net

Transformation in Action of Legal Services

Dr Jose Luis Cavalieri.net contadores abogados licenciados en administracion Derecho Tributario Previsional Civil y Comercial info@joseluiscavalieri.com Te 54 11 4953 7944 Junin 658 Buenos Aires C1026ABN CABA, Argentin