Re: ICSID Update/Highbury/el universal
in response to
by
Welcome to the Crystallex HUB on AGORACOM
Crystallex International Corporation is a Canadian-based gold company with a successful record of developing and operating gold mines in Venezuela and elsewhere in South America
Message: Re: ICSID Update/Highbury/el universal
Your Vote:
Did you know?
You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)
Below is a recent publication by a tribunal with respect to Ecuador. I have included only items of a 28 page report articles 37 to 42. It is a good read since it reflects the way ICSID back and forth arguements work and why it takes so long to complete. You can read for yourself the entire publication "Decision on the stay...." . I should mention that in some of the conclusive awards I have read countries who must pay up have 90 days to do so and if not interest will accrue. Oct 1, 2013 - Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11) Decision on the Stay of Enforcement of the Award (Sep 30, 2013)
IV. THE COMMITTEE’S ANALYSIS
37. On October 5, 2012 the Arbitral Tribunal issued its Award in the present case, with a Dissenting Opinion by one of its members. In essence, the decision awarded Claimants:
- the amount of US$ 1,769,625,000 for damages suffered;
- pre-award interest at the rate of 4.188% since May 16, 2006;
- post-award interest from the date of the Award at the U.S. 6 month LIBOR rate, compounded on a monthly basis.
38. On October 9, 2012 the Republic of Ecuador submitted an application for the annulment of the Award, which included a request for a stay of enforcement, pending a decision by this Committee. In accordance with Article 52(5) of the Convention:
"if the applicant requests a stay of enforcement of the award in his application, enforcement shall be stayed provisionally until the Committee rules on such request".
Consequently, the enforcement of the Award was provisionally stayed by the Secretary-General of ICSID.
39. On February 13, 2013 the Claimants filed a request for the lifting of the provisional stay. Initially Claimants requested that the provisional stay should be lifted or alternatively that any continued stay be conditioned on Ecuador providing proper security.
42 During the procedure, Claimants’ emphasis shifted to the alternative prayer: in the Reply43 and during the hearing,44
Claimants only requested that Ecuador provide adequate security; if the Committee grants Ecuador’s application to continue the stay, it should be conditioned upon the posting of a sufficient security.
40. Respondent replied requesting that the stay be continued, and that Claimants’ request for the posting of security be dismissed. 41. Both parties asked for the costs to be borne by the counterparty. 42. To decide the issues raised by Claimants and Respondent, the Committee will first address the question of whether the provisional stay of enforcement should be lifted. It will come to the conclusion that the stay should continue (A). Thereafter, it will briefly analyze whether Annulment Committees have the power to condition the stay of enforcement (B) and then decide whether in the This is page 17 of 28
1 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply