Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[andy] 16/8/2015 08:12

debbiegee 15 Aug'15 - 10:49 - 23568 of 23584 2 0 (premium)

They revoked the licenses in my mind because of percieved value and are not gonna give them back.

I am also sure we would not want to work in Indonesia again.

---

When CHL's action was started was not recovery of their licence their objective?

And if so, if it is offered back, would that not achieve their stated objective?

The dissipation of value is not the ROI's problem, nor fault, the coal price is on its knees and yet to bottom. There is an oversupply situation exacerbated by the slowdown in China, and pollution controls against coal.

I doubt the tribunal will award on the basis "we don't want to work there again" as this is not the action, surely recovery of CHL's licence was the reason for the action?

Genuine discussion point, the assumption that money was the only possible outcome in the event of a CHL win has always prevailed here, and yet I wonder if it is indeed a possible resolution?

With the current price of coal the project would be a non starter, IMO.

[baxter99] 16/8/2015 06:38

From the RNS... " Overall, the hearing was a useful exercise but it is disappointing that Mr Noor, one of Indonesia’s key witnesses, chose not to attend the hearing, as we had a number of questions we wished to put to him."

I wonder what they wanted to ask him?

[daddy warbucks] 15/8/2015 21:22

I will make this the last post on the subject and we can agree to disagree. You say Noors non appearance does not mean Churchill knew beforehand. I would argue that if that was the case, any attempt to exclude evidence of Noor would only have been made during the tribunal hearing, when it became known he wasn't coming.I did answer my own question straight away this morning, by saying each side would have had to supply lists of witnesses prior to the tribunal starting and this is when Churchill would have noticed his name was missing.You say you prefer dealing in facts rather than assumptions. I agree, but as we don't get the facts straight away, these boards would be very quiet without some form of discussion.I know we can agree with your final point about a settlement.

[weegeordie] 15/8/2015 21:11

Right or wrong assumptions don't matter at all - collusion may also be going on - if you guess correctly or incorrectly makes no difference to the end result. The non appearance of Noor as stated in the RNS doesn't at all mean that CHL knew beforehand. I much prefer to look at facts and not assumptions.
I am waiting patiently for the payout we deserve.
WG

[daddy warbucks] 15/8/2015 20:58

WeegeordieI had already answered my own question as I stated at the time and again tonight.Seeing as how Churchills RNS stated the evidence of Isran Noor was excluded, I think it is a fair assumption to make don't you?At the time of my earlier posts I was trying to find an association between Churchill trying to get evidence excluded before the tribunal started and how they knew Noor wasn't attending and whether there was some collusion between them and the ROI. A point which has since been alluded to by other posters.

[daddy warbucks] 15/8/2015 19:52

debbiegee - 15 Aug 2015 - 10:57 - 23569 of 23578 - 0Daddy,which part of all of the info that we have makes you ask the questionHow did we know before ?The rns gives no reason to think we knew before ?Daddy Warbucks - 15 Aug 2015 - 11:02 - 23570 of 23578 - 0The objection was before the hearing officially started.debbiegee - 15 Aug 2015 - 11:13 - 23571 of 23578 - 0July 30, 2015 The Claimants file a request for the exclusion of evidence.August 2, 2015 The parties conduct a document inspection in Singapore.August 3, 2015 - August 10, 2015 The Tribunal holds a hearing on document authenticity in Singapore.August 4, 2015 The Respondent submits oral observations on the Claimants’ request of July 30, 2015 during the hearing.The Tribunal decides on the exclusion of evidence.Sorry WHERE is the objection ?debbiegeeLook at my previous post 23562. However to answer the question, I thought July came before August. On the 30 th July Churchill filed a request for the exclusion of evidence. Therefore they were objecting to it being heard. This was before the tribunal started which was the 3rd August. As I say I had already answered my own question, but as I have been out I thought it only right to answer your post now.

[stephen1946] 15/8/2015 18:50

Dave444, hates to even think CHL may get award notice before Oxus.
CHL case is more straightforward.

[dave444] 15/8/2015 17:59

Stephen1946 is well documented on the OXS sites - unstable does not even begin to describe him!

[stephen1946] 15/8/2015 17:50

The Media have been misled or badly informed as to the actual case being dealt with by ICSID. The final decision on this case will be made in Washington D.C. The last hearing in Singapore was to facilitate the, R.O.I. Whereby witnesses could readily attend and give evidence, Churchill evidence was 99% written and concerned documents that R.O.I. said were, either forged or gained through illegal channels.

The Tribunal timetable was adhered to throughout primarily because the main witness for R.O.I. and against Churchill, Mr Noor failed to attend. All this is in the RNS, what is also there in the RNS is a safety valve, ie, Tribunal decision likely to be delivered in months.

The Tribunal and Churchill are enpowered to insist that Mr Noor makes an appearance, they have both failed to do this, Why??

It would seem to have been agreed by both, R.O.I. and Churchill that such a demand was not necessary, they would have had to inform the tribunal that they were both in agreement that the tribunal had no need to enforce the attendance of Mr Noor.

At this point, we need to know the future timetable of this hearing;
written procedure, dealt with.
oral procedure, dealt with.
Followed by,
cost submissions.
Deliberations.
Award.
Post award remedies.
Recognition and Enforcement.

R.O.I. know their fate, their application to throw out Churchill claim is lost, once that decision is posted, officially, the only route for R.O.I. is Out Of Court Settlement.

Tribunal awarded costs are onerous as will be the award if the case brought by R.O.I. is seen to be vexatious and without merit, coupled with the false allegation against Churchill of fraud.

Churchill have learned from the dreadful mistake made by Oxus Gold, who gave what turned out to be an unrealistic Date when their case might be concluded.

The Churchill case is a one off, the R.O.I. Have no choice but to go for the settlement and that time is now. Churchill delivered the RNS that said, "The Tribunal will deliver its verdict in Months" to placate R.O.I.

Plus, the mechanism exists whereby payment is made, without admission of guilt. I expect this in weeks, not months.

[frak] 15/8/2015 17:10

hxxp://www.hsgllp.com/documents/IBA_Arbitration_Entchev_Madison.pdf

An interesting article/background reading for newbies like me!

Apologies if someone has posted before.

[frak] 15/8/2015 16:56

I wouldn't be surprised to hear some way down the line that Mr Noor has been arrested and subsequently sued by the ROI to reclaim some of the settlement monies (coming our way!). He's got to be worth a bob or two.

[nicebut] 15/8/2015 16:01

Was it Noor that was making these allegations (Fraud) against CHL? Is that why he (obviously) couldn`t turn up? Or is that too simplistic?

From 4th June RNS:

- There is conclusive evidence to show that the accounts of Indonesia's key witnesses are inaccurate in critical respects.

In making these submissions, Churchill and its solicitors note the fact that Indonesia no longer alleges that Churchill participated in the alleged scheme to defraud the State.

[bobic] 15/8/2015 15:44

Widodo targets 5.5% growths next year.
todays headlines.

[debbiegee] 15/8/2015 11:13

July 30, 2015 The Claimants file a request for the exclusion of evidence.
August 2, 2015 The parties conduct a document inspection in Singapore.
August 3, 2015 - August 10, 2015 The Tribunal holds a hearing on document authenticity in Singapore.
August 4, 2015 The Respondent submits oral observations on the Claimants’ request of July 30, 2015 during the hearing.

The Tribunal decides on the exclusion of evidence.


Sorry WHERE is the objection ?

[daddy warbucks] 15/8/2015 11:02

The objection was before the hearing officially started.

[debbiegee] 15/8/2015 10:57

Daddy,which part of all of the info that we have makes you ask the question
How did we know before ?
The rns gives no reason to think we knew before ?

[debbiegee] 15/8/2015 10:49

After reading every post and news snippet here I do not believe receiving the licenses back are an option.
They revoked the licenses in my mind because of percieved value and are not gonna give them back.
I am also sure we would not want to work in Indonesia again.

[anresu] 15/8/2015 10:39

ICSID is concerned only with Churchill's claim for financial compensation. The option of handing back the licences does not arise.
It could, however, be raised in any OOC negotiations - in which case Churchill would probably say "What about the money we have lost over the past few years?".

[debbiegee] 15/8/2015 09:58

If they are indeed in talks and negotiatios which have not been denied or acknowledged I can imagine they are very sensitive and satisfactory conclusions cannot easily be reached and the way has to be paved with face saving and scapegoats for ROI.
logically and sensibly the ISCID route has to be kept open until/IF another soluton is found.


Your question has been raised many times .
I will let others answer it.

[daddy warbucks] 15/8/2015 09:53

An intriguing question, but I would have to ask if that was the case, why did Churchill go to such lengths to secure a placing to fight the case?

[andy] 15/8/2015 09:40

debbie,

I sincerely doubt it or otherwise they could reach an OOC settlement now and cease the tribunal.

Does anyone know for a fact if one possible outcome could be simply handing the licences back?

That's a genuine question that I haven't seen raised ( I don't have time to read every post though!) and I was wondering whether it is a possible outcome at this stage?

[debbiegee] 15/8/2015 09:27

July 30, 2015 The Claimants file a request for the exclusion of evidence.
August 2, 2015 The parties conduct a document inspection in Singapore.
August 3, 2015 - August 10, 2015 The Tribunal holds a hearing on document authenticity in Singapore.
August 4, 2015 The Respondent submits oral observations on the Claimants’ request of July 30, 2015 during the hearing.

The Tribunal decides on the exclusion of evidence.


July 30th ?

Could we be working together ?
Was the only way if WE asked for it ?
Could be a case of ,If you do that we will do that ?
Some back scratching to save face ?
Whichever way they havnt got a main witness which to me means they have thrown the towel in?
So do they want to go all the way or can they come to a comprimise and negotiate an acceptable OOC with us ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All only thoughts,Im in and holding but not telling anybody else to buy.

[daddy warbucks] 15/8/2015 09:19

Answering my own question after thinking about it! Both parties would have had to submit their list of witnesses to each other. It is probably at that time that Churchill saw that Isran Noor wasn't attending and sought to have his evidence excluded.What was the thinking of the ROI?

[daddy warbucks] 15/8/2015 09:09

Daddy Warbucks - 15 Aug 2015 - 07:29 - 23559 of 23560 - 0Could be Isran Noors evidence being thrown out?But that begs the question, how did they know he wasn't attending BEFORE the tribunal started?Reading my post again, I did not make it clear, how did Churchill know he wasn't attending before the tribunal started.?