Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[bones30] 28/12/2015 23:17

Debbie. Hahaha. Superb!

[debbiegee] 28/12/2015 10:15

And make a painful difference for ROI

[rettah] 28/12/2015 09:11

From the telegraph:
"Deutsche Bank believes the pound could fall as low as $1.27 next year and $1.15 in 2017 from about $1.485 today"

Which would obviously have a beneficial impact on any payout.

[debbiegee] 28/12/2015 05:17

on a lighter note not chl related :-)

Happy festive days !

[mrshaungcm] 27/12/2015 12:33

hxxp://www.blplaw.com/expert-legal-insights/articles/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Indonesia-in-Focus-Churchill-NEW.pdf

[karateboy] 26/12/2015 21:27

Oxs case was a bit complicated and souranded with secrecy and confidentiality. Share holders even did not know what was the terms for the Oxs legal team cost. What did ' no wins no fees' mean? As the terms Were confidential!! So share holders don't know if they can keep $12m that the court 'encouraged' Uzbec to pay, or most of it is going to go towards legal cost. On the face of it, it appears that directors accepted the mining licences with a condition that they must produce so much gold every year, otherwise licences could be declared void,...they did not produce the committed gold, because Uzbec would not let them one way or other.So looking at it black and white they lost the licences. If this is the case why should it take 6 years for Judges to come to the decision that they came. I was a share holder in Oxs until last month, took a10% profit. I have been in and out of Churchil. Intend to invest in January as I believe Churchil has a better chance of winning.Oxs directors should take most of the blame for accepting licences with caveat in a chronically corrupt country where everything planned from day 1.
Churchil case appears to be more transparent.

[playthebull] 26/12/2015 11:35

Happy Xmas Andy. Agreed this is far from a slam dunk, especially when you consider what just happened to Oxus.

Terrible reading some of the stories on the OXS thread. It seems some on there bet the family silver.

Still. I am on the hook for a bit here but nothing that will be life changing if we lose. Could make a big difference if we win tho.

Basically a 20-1 bet. Not had one of those come in before.

[mrshaungcm] 25/12/2015 04:15

Status of Proceeding: Pending (each party files observations on the other party’s submission on costs on December 23, 2015)

[fidra] 24/12/2015 17:44

Thanks Shaun had not read those before.

[mrshaungcm] 24/12/2015 17:17

Mining Co. Says Doc Spat Nears End In Indonesia Case
By Matt Sharp

Law360, New York (December 2, 2015, 10:40 PM ET) -- Churchill Mining PLC said Wednesday that it is nearing the end of a document authenticity spat in ongoing arbitration proceedings against Indonesia, reiterating its view that forgery played no role in its mining licenses for one of the world's biggest coal reserves.
The London-listed mining company said that it and Indonesia submitted their first-round post-hearing briefs on the topic in October, followed by reply briefs in November. The matter now lies with a three-person tribunal at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.

"We are pleased that oral and written arguments in the document authenticity phase are complete, and we look forward to the decision of the tribunal,” Churchill Chairman David Quinlivan said in a statement. “The sooner this dispute is resolved, the better it will be for all concerned."

Churchill and its Australian subsidiary Planet Mining Pty. Ltd. allege that Indonesia unfairly expropriated their interest in the East Kutai Coal Project, a project on the island of Kalimantan in Indonesia. Churchill has estimated that there are roughly 2.7 billion metric tons of coal in the area.

But for its part Indonesia has disputed the validity of the Churchill and Planet Mining licenses and alleged forgery. Indonesian police reportedly raided Churchill’s Jakarta office late last year and seized a number of documents and computers as part of a related police investigation.

The issue of forgery has been central to the arbitration in recent months after Indonesia moved to dismiss the case on grounds of document authenticity. The tribunal held a hearing on the topic in Singapore in early August and later requested two post-hearing briefs, according to Churchill.

Churchill said its arguments in the briefs focused on the “large and diverse body of evidence” showing that the allegedly forged licenses were authorized by local officials, the consequences of Indonesia's refusals and failures to produce documents and Indonesia's failure to call key witnesses that were involved.

“The filing of the parties' reply post-hearing briefs signals the close of arguments in the document authenticity stage of the proceedings,” Churchill said. “The tribunal will now consider the parties' submissions and will in due course hand down its decision. It is not known how long the tribunal will take to deliver its decision.”

Counsel for Indonesia did not immediately comment late Wednesday.

Churchill is represented by Audley Sheppard, Ben Luscombe, Sam Luttrell and Montse Ferrer of Clifford Chance LLP.

Indonesia is represented by Mark O’Donoghue, Claudia Frutos-Peterson, Marat Umerov and Christina Trahanas of Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle LLP; Wemmy Muharamsyah, Richele S. Suwita, Deila Taslimbe, Alvian P. Putera and Benjamin Harahap of DNC Advocates At Work; and Indonesia’s Ministry of Law and Human Rights, Office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Domestic Affairs.

The case is Churchill Mining and Planet Mining Pty. Ltd. v. Republic of Indonesia, case number ARB/12/14, at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.

— Editing by Ben Guilfoy.
Related Articles
hxxp://www.law360.com/articles/733225/mining-co-says-doc-spat-nears-end-in-indonesia-case

[mrshaungcm] 24/12/2015 17:14

hxxp://www.blplaw.com/dispute-resolution/international-arbitration?view=expert-insights

[mrshaungcm] 24/12/2015 17:13

a bit dated
Churchill / Planet arbitration claims against Indonesia: Managing Costs in International Arbitration
Posted by Kent Phillips, Roger Milburn, Benson Lim under Dispute Resolution, Energy & Natural Resources, Indonesia, International Arbitration, Mining & Metals, on 07.09.2015
Churchill’s ICSID arbitration against Indonesia continues. In this update we summarise the latest developments in the case and discuss strategies to manage costs in international arbitration in relation to mining investments.

Introduction
In March 2013, we wrote on the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) arbitrations brought by UK-listed Churchill Mining plc (“Churchill221;) and its wholly-owned Australian subsidiary Planet Mining Pty. Ltd against Indonesia.

To recap, Churchill’s ICSID arbitration against Indonesia for more than US$2 billion concerns the ownership of a mine in East Kutai province which has been estimated to be the 7th largest undeveloped coal resource.

What has happened since March 2013?
There have been several procedural applications by both parties since the arbitration commenced. In particular, Indonesia applied to have an expedited hearing on the alleged forgery of the mining licenses and other documentation relied upon by Churchill.

The Tribunal agreed that it was efficient to bifurcate the issue of alleged forgery, effectively hearing it separately from the rest of the case. The Tribunal then ordered an expedited hearing to deal with all factual aspects relating to alleged forgery and the legal consequences of a finding of forgery on each claim.

This expedited hearing was concluded in Singapore on 10 August 2015. The parties have now been directed to file post-hearing briefs and rebuttal briefs on 12 October 2015 and 9 November 2015 respectively. The Tribunal is likely to render an award a few months later.

If the Tribunal makes any findings of forgery, the scope and nature of the dispute between Churchill and Indonesia could be substantially altered as Churchill’s claims may be adversely affected and consequently, there may not be a need for arbitration on the other factual or legal disputes.

Bifurcation as a means to manage costs in international arbitration
Indonesia’s application to bifurcate a preliminary issue is one of the common techniques used to manage costs in international arbitration.

Bifurcation essentially means that the tribunal determines particular discrete issues at an early hearing. This may help to narrow the scope of the parties’ dispute hence saving significant time and costs for the parties.

However, for bifurcation to be appropriate, it is important that the parties consider whether the issues to be bifurcated:

Are clear and discrete (in our experience, issues which are suitable to be carved out and heard as preliminary issues tend to be largely of a legal nature); and
Significantly narrow the scope of the parties’ dispute e.g. the applicable law which could determine whether the parties’ substantive rights in the claims even exist.
Often parties look to separate liability and quantum to avoid the costs associated with determining the quantum of loss being unnecessarily incurred. Also, once liability is established, the parties may be more inclined to reach a settlement on quantum without expending further resources on additional hearings).

Other strategies to manage costs in international arbitration
In the right cases, this approach can save unnecessary costs of lawyers and experts. At a time of great pressure on costs in the coal sector, it is timely to point out some of the other ways for parties to manage costs in arbitration:

Expedited procedures: Parties can choose arbitration clauses with arbitration under institutional rules which provide for expedited arbitrations, or agree to a fast-track arbitration procedure in the contract. In the right cases, some savings in time and cost can be also achieved with one arbitrator rather than three.
Settlement as part of dispute resolution strategy: Parties should always keep the option of an early settlement of the dispute open and seek to incorporate settlement goals and means (e.g. mediation) as part of the overall dispute resolution strategy.
Managing the arbitration procedure: Parties should seize opportunities at the preliminary meeting stage to seek from the tribunal a tight timetable and, where appropriate depending on the facts, limits on disclosure, evidence and expert evidence. Achieving an early final hearing will almost inevitably naturally assist with effective cost control.
There have been concerns that international arbitration can be prohibitively expensive. However, an appropriate and properly evaluated cost-management strategy at the outset can help greatly to keep costs manageable, even for disputes concerning large international investments.

BLP’s perspective on Churchill arbitration and the mining industry
Mining investments, inevitably, require significant financial risks arising from the size of the financial investments, time taken for the materialisation of the profits, and the necessity for a close-knit relationship between the investors and the government of the host state.

It is no surprise then that Churchill’s ICSID arbitration continues to be closely watched by investors, who have also been following news about concerns for the future of some of Indonesia’s bilateral investment treaties (“BITs”).

Potential mining investors who understand jurisdiction risk should not be deterred and the focus will be on management of these risks when conducting due diligence and entering negotiations in relation to investment opportunities.

In this regard, mining investors should carefully consider their dispute resolution clauses when entering into investment contracts.

International arbitration is often the best solution. Mining investors should also consider the option of structuring their investments in such a way as to take advantage of any recourse available under available BITs.

Further, boiler plate clauses will not always be appropriate to the circumstances and investors are advised to consider carefully whether for example, building in mandatory negotiation or mediation provisions or agreeing that disputes be heard using fast track techniques, will be to their benefit in the event that a dispute arises.

If such matters are not reviewed at the point of contracting, it will be very difficult to avoid being required to resolve disputes in the manner agreed, even if—with the benefit of hindsight—an alternative method of resolution would be more efficient or beneficial.

When disputes arise, we encourage early and objective analysis of the merits of the claims balanced by a careful cost analysis of dispute resolution options. This – and the other cost management strategies noted above – are good practices in a strong market, and vital when prices of the investments have fallen away.

[carlo sartori] 24/12/2015 10:49

Thank you arnesu.

C.

[p@] 24/12/2015 10:36

Not all court rulings are negative for shares-


Nice time for top-up.

[andy] 24/12/2015 10:18

And down again, though not by as much as I expected, given the Oxus news yesterday.

Traders will be smelling their next opportunity here.......

[anresu] 24/12/2015 08:30

Carlo

No. The Oxus case was heard by UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law).

[sos100] 24/12/2015 08:23

rossannan-have you not watched the presentation?

there is a link above.

ross-i've just seen your post below,no worries

[debbiegee] 24/12/2015 05:58

Rossamon I have never suggested we would be awarded 100% of the claim

[carlo sartori] 24/12/2015 01:07

Sorry to hear of your misfortune ohisay. I hate to hear of shareholders getting "wiped out".

I have never been involved with Oxus although (through references from this BB) I have of course heard of them.

I have no sense of the strength or otherwise of their case. On the contrary I am pretty familiar with the Churchill story and claim (although, of course, perhaps not everything is visible). On the basis of my "understanding" of the Churchill case I am still VERY confident with my investment - although NOTHING is certain.

Was the Oxus case being judged by ICSID?

Carlo

[andy] 24/12/2015 00:25

from II.

---


Churchill Mining (LON:CHL) has denied that it wants to delay arbitration of the dispute over the revocation of exploitation mining licences for the East Kutai coal project in East Kalimantan.


Churchill said its directors' attention had been drawn to comments attributed to an executive of the Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources in an article published in Petromindo, an Indonesian mining and energy news service, on 7 December.


The article quoted the head of the legal bureau at the directorate general of the MEMR as saying that while the Indonesian government "target is for [the arbitration] to be concluded early 2016", Churchill "may seek for a delay".


Churchill said its directors wish to advise that, since the beginning of the ICSID arbitration against the Republic of Indonesia, the company has actively sought to have every aspect of the case dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Churchill chairman David Quinlivan said: "While I believe it would be in the interests of both Churchill and Indonesia if the ICSID arbitration were to be concluded amicably to the satisfaction of both parties in early 2016, I was disappointed to see that Indonesia has chosen to aggravate the dispute by publicly suggesting that Churchill is interested in delaying the arbitration.


"Nothing could be further from the truth. Churchill has never delayed any part of the proceedings.


"In contrast, Indonesia has taken every opportunity to avoid presenting its defence to Churchill's claims, first by objecting to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators and then, after that objection failed, by making a further preliminary objection based on allegations of fraud and forgery."


Separately, Churchill confirmed that all resolutions proposed at its annual general meeting today were passed.