Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[neo26] 23/3/2019 10:50

JackThe tribunal are lying, Anthony Salim( nusantaras partner) went to credit suisse office and handed chl revocation order to them when chl were looking for funding the project.I think its evident noor was playing both sides when he wrote letter to aim mkt saying chl licenses forged and then days later all licenses are genuine.Total charades at play

[neo26] 23/3/2019 10:50

AndyIt appears like icsid is not impartial organisation.The just want countries to stay in organisation so the money can keep rolling in.I think its 80% likely we fold but i dont know i have soft spot of chl.

[neo26] 23/3/2019 10:42

Jack

The tribunal are lying, Anthony Salim( nusantaras partner) went to credit suisse office and handed chl revocation order to them when chl were looking for funding the project.

I think its evident noor was playing both sides when he wrote letter to aim mkt saying chl licenses forged and then days later all licenses are genuine.

Total charades at play

[wulber] 23/3/2019 10:32

Pala please fund a new case, take it to a Western court system and screw the fxxxers over!

[jack1236] 23/3/2019 10:06

If you think of the Arbitrators as 'tools' at the disposal of the Secretary General that do specific jobs. For example Professor Dr. Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel has his own 'method' all to do with 'time' (apparently it's been universally adopted). 'Time' on a case; time for the applicant to present their case, time for the respondent to defend the claim, time for Tribunal to consider the merits of each side; time is subjective but will depend on the case. You can't
treat a complex case as Churchill's as a straightforward case; time really matters. But I think he was selected to negate Churchill's claim that the Tribunal ignored the following principle; the 'right to be heard'.

[jack1236] 23/3/2019 10:04

Nusantara says different in Feb 2019

Award page 167

'It is not established either that Regency officials
requested payments from Ridlatama to keep the disputed mining rights or
from Nusantara to obtain rights to the EKCP. Moreover, there is no evidence
that Nusantara conspired to strip Ridlatama of its mining rights, for instance,
by inducing Regency officials to revoke the mining licenses. Nor are there
indications that Mr. Noor was seeking to “play both sides” 727 so as to auction
off the mining rights to the highest bidder. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that
this bad faith scenario does not assist in ascertaining the author of the
forgery.'

'From the horses mouth' Feb 2019



According to detikFinance news data, Prabowo through his company PT Kaltim Nusantara Coal (KNC) won the struggle for a 10,000 hectare coal mining concession in East Kutai. He competed with foreign parties Churchill Mining Plc from England.

The attorney of KNC Hotman Paris9 revealed that his party won the lawsuit to the level of judicial review (PK) at the Supreme Court.

[andy] 23/3/2019 10:01

Jack,

please feel free to post here too.

[jack1236] 23/3/2019 09:56

Andy

I'm posting stuff on the other thread; purely because it's whichever is top. Ideally everything should be posted on this thread.

[andy] 23/3/2019 09:47

neo,


I hope CHL can update us soon regarding the next steps, assuming there are some of course.


I feel DQ will give this another shot, maybe not through ICSID though, I don't think we will beer get anything from them, it's just a corrupt organisation doing the politicos bidding and trying to give an illusion of being fair and impartial.

[jack1236] 23/3/2019 09:06

Nusantara says different in Feb 2019

Award page 167

'It is not established either that Regency officials
requested payments from Ridlatama to keep the disputed mining rights or
from Nusantara to obtain rights to the EKCP. Moreover, there is no evidence
that Nusantara conspired to strip Ridlatama of its mining rights, for instance,
by inducing Regency officials to revoke the mining licenses. Nor are there
indications that Mr. Noor was seeking to “play both sides” 727 so as to auction
off the mining rights to the highest bidder. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that
this bad faith scenario does not assist in ascertaining the author of the
forgery.'

'From the horses mouth' Feb 2019



According to detikFinance news data, Prabowo through his company PT Kaltim Nusantara Coal (KNC) won the struggle for a 10,000 hectare coal mining concession in East Kutai. He competed with foreign parties Churchill Mining Plc from England.

The attorney of KNC Hotman Paris9 revealed that his party won the lawsuit to the level of judicial review (PK) at the Supreme Court.

[jack1236] 23/3/2019 08:37

If you think of the Arbitrators as 'tools' at the disposal of the Secretary General that do specific jobs. For example Professor Dr. Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel has his own 'method' all to do with 'time' (apparently it's been universally adopted). 'Time' on a case; time for the applicant to present their case, time for the respondent to defend the claim, time for Tribunal to consider the merits of each side; time is subjective but will depend on the case. You can't
treat a complex case as Churchill's as a straightforward case; time really matters. But I think he was selected to negate Churchill's claim that the Tribunal ignored the following principle; the 'right to be heard'.

[neo26] 22/3/2019 21:48

Well all we can do is wait for the next rns, This article clearly states icsid had great problems.

[roy keane] 22/3/2019 21:37

it appears they will get nothing from icsid now so it seems.

[roy keane] 22/3/2019 21:35

To save the legitimacy of the process, ICSID could implement one or more of the following measures (provided they do not lead to undue bureaucracy or other pathologies):
•constituting a collegial body for the appointment of ad hoc committee members sending its recommendations to the president of the Administrative Council;
•introducing more consultation with the parties in the appointment of ad hoc committee members, including the circulation of a list of candidates to be ranked by the parties (a practice the current secretary general has adopted for certain appointments);
•limiting the pool of candidates to those who sit exclusively on ad hoc committees or who have never had an ICSID award annulled;
•granting the parties a power of veto over proposed ad hoc committee members whose awards have been subject to an annulment application;
•introducing official scrutiny of annulment decisions by the same or another collegial body;
•submitting challenges against ad hoc committee members to the same or another collegial body; and
•assigning a different secretary to the annulment proceedings than the one who served in the original arbitration.


great idea.

[roy keane] 22/3/2019 21:33

Immunity of annulment decisions

The last factor that has contributed to the growth of the elephant is the immunity that ad hoc committee members enjoy. Their annulment decisions terminate the process once and for all and cannot be challenged, whether at ICSID or at the enforcement stage before the courts of the ICSID Convention’s contracting states.

This may be a factor accounting for the growing number of ad hoc committee decisions where the underlying reasoning is poor or lacking. Take one recent ICSID annulment decision in favour of my client, US investor Joseph Lemire, against Ukraine. In that case, the ad hoc committee dismissed Ukraine’s application to annul a decision on jurisdiction and liability that was incorporated in the final award, on the ground that the state had waived its right to do so by failing to object to procedural violations relating to the decision between the time it was rendered and the issuance of the final award. As a result, the state could not rely on the truckload of annulment grounds relating to the decision on jurisdiction and liability that it was using to challenge the final award.

Despite the view of one of its members (who filed a concurring opinion) that these grounds should be addressed, the ad hoc committee simply said that the grounds would not have led to an annulment had they been entertained, without giving the slightest indication as to why. It was a sour victory for the winner, and a sour defeat for the loser from a purely legal perspective. The reality is that some of these decisions would not pass the scrutiny of the ICC Court or a national court.

[wulber] 22/3/2019 21:33

Roy, where is this from.

[roy keane] 22/3/2019 21:30

Dual roles on tribunals and ad hoc committees

There have also been worrying occasions where ad hoc committees appointed by the secretary general have included members of tribunals whose awards are the subject of annulment applications. For example, in the Togo annulment proceeding, Albert Jan van den Berg was appointed as president of the ad hoc committee in November 2010, only a few months after the award he had rendered as a member of the Enron v Argentina tribunal had been annulled by another ad hoc committee.
In other words, Togo had to rely on the Enron annulment decision, fresh out of the oven, in its arguments before one of the authors of the Enron award that had been recently annulled. This simply should not be permitted.

[roy keane] 22/3/2019 21:28

Such views can have a practical impact on proceedings. In one annulment case in 2010-2011 in which I acted for the state, Togo Electricité and GDF-Suez Energie Services v Togo, the sophisticated and experienced counsel for the investors defending the award went so far as to plead on the record that annulling the award on the grounds invoked by Togo would hurt the ICSID system and upset the secretary general. His exact words to the ad hoc committee were: “I think that by [not annulling], you would be making ICSID arbitration improve, and I am sure that you will not be displeasing [the secretary general] of ICSID who has again recently declared that ‘the Klöckner era is behind us, it is over’” – a reference to the controversial annulment of the award in Klöckner v Cameroon in 1983.

wtf

[stephen1946] 22/3/2019 21:18

Google it, read it, understand what happened.

[wulber] 22/3/2019 21:11

We will find out soon l guess.

[andy] 22/3/2019 21:09

Wulber,


I would think so, but surely DQ has lost all faith in the probity of ICSID by now?


I want to know the status of the $9 million costs now unstayed, are they asking for this to be paid now, and if so, will any further action by CHL, in any jurisdiction, allow this to be potentially stayed again?

[roy keane] 22/3/2019 21:05

The elephant in the room?

[stephen1946] 22/3/2019 20:49

I pointed this out sometime ago.

ICSID ANNULMENT COMMITTEE`S: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. by HAMID GHARAVI