Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[neo26] 22/3/2019 20:43

Wheres KRG?

[neo26] 22/3/2019 20:40

JackThats what i thought.

[wulber] 22/3/2019 20:35

And now we've lost the same facts could also be used in a revision?

[jack1236] 22/3/2019 20:19

I think DQ means, had we won the annulment, then these issues would then be raised in a new arbitration.

[wulber] 22/3/2019 20:16

Subject to funding in place etc of course

[wulber] 22/3/2019 20:08

Meaning:"all of the issues you have noted will certainly be at the forefront of any revised submission."Does that mean go for revision still even if lose annulment case or only if CHL succeeded?

[neo26] 22/3/2019 19:21

A question i asked DQ a while ago, the last paragraph was interesting.
 
The tribunal has stated that they hope to render its decision by mid march, should this fail can chl go for a review considering new information that has come to light since the award ie putra lie but still employed by state, noor not teaching in Uni lied so he didnt have to attend, unclean and unclear licenses?

 
In summary we can make further submissions at any time however any additional submission would bring with it a reset of the time clock. If there are new factual issues (such as those you identified) to be raised, under the ICSID rules the relevance and impact of these facts would be referred back to the initial Tribunal for assessment. Given the partisan Indonesia friendly outcome we saw within the initial decision it was not a path we though had any chance of success.
 
Our Annulment Application on the other hand is based purely on a number of manifest procedural errors committed by the initial Tribunal in running this case and it was those procedural errors that resulted in Churchill being denied due process (eg Churchill was expressly prohibited by the Tribunal from presenting relevant factual evidence). Further it was this denial of due process that in turn led to the Tribunal handing down a biased and unsound decision.
 
Nothing is certain but as you say this unsound ruling should be annulled and that being the case all of the issues you have noted will certainly be at the forefront of any revised submission.

[neo26] 22/3/2019 17:44

Maybe ask in the review, ask for those copies of unclean licenses in east kalimantan too, it wont be bursensome...

I know im clutching at straws.. but...

[jack1236] 22/3/2019 17:44

Neo

Lets wait and see.

There are lots of 'loose ends'; ROI never filed a defence to Churchill's claim to the ICSID; everything follows from their defence. The ROI just threw in random stuff and the ICSID just rolled with it.

[neo26] 22/3/2019 17:37

Jack

The question needs to be asked where is the police investigation now?

We truly were mugged and i cant understand why icsid did this to us.

[jack1236] 22/3/2019 17:26

Neo

It's all the stuff Churchill needed to prove their case; the Tribunal conveniently helped the ROI hide evidence, 'it's too cumbersome, it will hamper the police investigation etc, etc'.

Even the ROI's costs were ridiculous. No doubt a few 'backhanders' in the costs.

[neo26] 22/3/2019 17:18

JackI recall reading an article, Dq said nusantara filed a police report but the police report came back with no issues.

[jack1236] 22/3/2019 17:13

Neo

Yes, you couldn't make this up.

[neo26] 22/3/2019 16:57

Remember the fire?

[jack1236] 22/3/2019 16:36

Neo

I can't find a direct complaint by Nusantara. It's bizarre that the police raided Churchill's offices, but didn't raid our partners offices

[neo26] 22/3/2019 16:29

JackIf DQ would have had that evidence he would have suspended the annulment and commence review. This never happened...Hotman Paris was involved in the local courts. He representing nusantara, didnt they file a complaint? Was that police complaint..

[nico115] 22/3/2019 16:22

When has Stephen ever been right??!! He says buy we should sell,he says sell we should buy lol

[jack1236] 22/3/2019 16:22

Neo, no I'm saying it wasn't Prabowo outfit that Churchill took to the Supreme Court; it was the Regency.

[jack1236] 22/3/2019 16:19

Neo26

Do I have faith in the ICSID, no, but in saying that, if DQ has 'Award changing evidence'; then maybe. Although I'd take the ICSID to court; just so the 'spotlight' is on them internationally. So people can see what a 'total shower' they are.

[neo26] 22/3/2019 16:17

Are you saying they didnt hand down the decision?

[jack1236] 22/3/2019 16:14

Neo26

From April 2012

1. The notations only provide an indication as to what the Supreme Court's decision will be and are not the same as the Supreme Court handing down its decision.

2. Until the Supreme Court hands down its decision there is no binding and enforceable judgment. The 'handing down' is when the Supreme Court provides its written judgment. The Company does not know when this will happen.

The appeal was launched to overturn the decision by the Administrative Tribunal in Samarinda, East Kalimantan in relation to the revocation of the four mining licenses that comprise the East Kutai Coal Project (Churchill 75% interest).

[neo26] 22/3/2019 16:14

JackDo you have any confidence left in icsid?The decision has been made, they will not overturn.If it possible and have funding available then they should try a different tribunal.

[neo26] 22/3/2019 16:05

JackI think he was talking about the claim in supreme court, indonesia.

[jack1236] 22/3/2019 15:43

The admission by Prabowo that 'he won against Churchill Mining' is enough for Revision. I thought the ROI had won. I also doubt that he ever paid what he claimed for the land in 2004.

[neo26] 22/3/2019 15:29

Stephen was the one banging on about it not being over if we lose annulment...