www.archive-org-2014.com » COM » I » IAREPORTER

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".

    Archived pages: 638 . Archive date: 2014-06.

  • Title: Mexico persists in battle to reduce $77 Million NAFTA debt; published damages award applied several notable discounts, including effect of social protests against investor’s product - Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter)
    Descriptive info: You are here:.. Mexico persists in battle to reduce $77 Million NAFTA debt; published damages award applied several notable discounts, including effect of social protests against investor’s product.. publication date:.. Mar 15, 2011.. Can't view this article? If you are a subscriber, and we have your IP addresses on  ...   the top-left corner of this page.. This will ensure you are "recognized".. If you are a subscriber, and you use a log-in ID and password for the site, please click.. here.. If you are NOT a subscriber, why not join today? Learn more about.. subscriber benefits.. Click here to join..

    Original link path: /articles/20110315
    Open archive

  • Title: ANALYSIS: Tribunal in Grand River v. U.S.A. arbitration declines to import non-investment law obligations into NAFTA; role of other “relevant” legal obligations in treaty interpretation under Vienna Convention is not discussed - Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter)
    Descriptive info: ANALYSIS: Tribunal in Grand River v.. U.. arbitration declines to import non-investment law obligations into NAFTA; role of other “relevant” legal obligations in treaty interpretation under Vienna Convention is not discussed.. Mar 6, 2011.. Previous.. |.. Next..  .. By Luke Eric Peterson.. In a recently-published arbitral award, arbitrators hearing an investor s claim against the United States have declined to consider that the breach of non-NAFTA obligations might give rise to a breach of a controversial NAFTA provision.. In reaching this decision, the arbitrators expressly deferred to a 2001 interpretive note issued by the three NAFTA signatories (Canada, United States and Mexico).. The 2001 statement by the NAFTA Free Trade Commission (FTC) was occasioned by concern that arbitrators might take capacious readings of the ambiguously-worded NAFTA Article 1105 (which provides for treatment in accordance with international law ).. Hence, the NAFTA parties made clear that the contentious clause do[es] not require treatment in addition to or beyond that which is required by the customary international law minimum standard of treatment of aliens.. The statement also stressed that a determination that there has been a breach of another provision of the NAFTA, or of a separate international agreement, does not establish that there has been a breach of Article 1105(1).. In the view of the arbitrators in the Grand River v.. case, the 2001 statement foreclosed any prospect that a breach of some other international law obligation including certain human rights and indigenous rights could give rise to a breach of NAFTA Article 1105.. For their part, the claimants had pointed to a string of supposed international law obligations which the United States was alleged to have violated - particularly ones which mandate consultation with indigenous peoples prior to making important regulatory decisions affecting their interests.. Lawyers for the U.. State Department disagreed as to the legal status of certain of the external obligations cited by claimants; but, in any event, the United States insisted that the tribunal should bow to the clear statement of the three NAFTA parties to the effect that such non-NAFTA obligations could not be imported into the NAFTA via Article 1105.. Minimum Standard does not vary for indigenous persons, or cover discrimination.. Of particular note, the arbitral tribunal rejected an argument by claimants which posited that their status as indigenous persons meant that the U.. could be held to a higher standard under Article 1105.. While expressing some sympathy for the treatment meted out to the claimants by U.. authorities, the tribunal held that NAFTA Article 1105 mandated a uniform standard of treatment for all foreign investments one which did not admit of specialized procedural rights owing to some categories of investors (for e.. g.. indigenous persons).. *.. The tribunal also rejected an argument by claimants that Article 1105 could be read to contain an obligation of non-discrimination against special or disadvantaged groups (and a concomitant duty to consult such groups when their commercial interests were at issue.. ).. On this point, the tribunal nodded to the earlier Methanex v.. arbitration, where a different tribunal held that there was nothing in the content of NAFTA Article 1105 which prevented governments from according.. different.. treatment  ...   of any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.. While Article 31(3)(c) does not operate as a springboard for importing external norms into a given treaty, such as the NAFTA and providing claimants with the ability to claim for the breach of such external obligations - it might be the case that other relevant rules of international law might shape an arbitral tribunal s interpretation of a given investment treaty or trade agreement obligation.. For instance, to take an extreme hypothetical, a tribunal might take account of other rules, such as a human rights norm proscribing human slavery, in a context where an investor (which utilizes slave labor in its activities) argues for a.. narrow.. construction of certain investment treaty protections.. *** In such a scenario, an effort by arbitrators to interpret an investment treaty protection in light of broader relevant rules of international law including norms proscribing slavery - might take place without there being any fear that external norms are imported into the basic treaty.. While Article 31(3)(c) has been the subject of much discussion in the investment law secondary literature, arbitral tribunals have tended not to acknowledge this clause of the VCLT, even in cases where they advert to external legal norms for interpretive guidance or analogies.. ****.. Hence, in the recent Grand River award, it remains difficult to assess whether the tribunal recognizes and acknowledges the role that external legal obligations may play in the interpretive process, even where such norms may.. be imported or transplanted into the core treaty being interpreted.. * The tribunal expressed this sympathy in its decision to not shift any of the arbitration costs onto the claimants.. Moreover, two of the three arbitrators went further in the body of the award in making several findings which laid blame at the door of U.. authorities, even while finding that the treatment of the Mr.. Montour s investments did not rise to the level where it breached the NAFTA.. ** The claimants cited, among other things, treaties between the United States and Canada affecting the Haudenosaunee tribe (of which certain claimants were members), in particular the 1794 Jay Treaty; customary law rules affecting indigenous peoples; and fundamental human rights norms, including jus cogens principles.. *** The term "narrow" is used here to denote an interpretation which focuses narrowly on the investor protection (to the exclusion of other background norms); it is not meant to denote a narrow, limited or parsimonious view of the protection owed to the investor.. Indeed, on the narrow (or blinkered) reading that is meant here, the investor's protection might be broader if it is not interpreted in light of outside norms proscribing human slavery.. **** See a research note prepared by.. for the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) for background, and discussion of the secondary literature:.. http://www.. unctad.. org/en/docs/webdiaeia20097_en.. pdf.. Investment Arbitration Reporter is a specialized news publication tracking developments in the area of international investment law and policy.. The publication does not offer legal or financial advice or recommendations of any kind.. To offer news-tips or comments, email the Editor, Luke Eric Peterson, at:.. editor@iareporter.. com.. Back to top..

    Original link path: /articles/20110306_3
    Open archive

  • Title: Investor withdraws stay request, and plans to proceed with twin NAFTA arbitration claims - Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter)
    Descriptive info: Investor withdraws stay request, and plans to proceed with twin NAFTA arbitration claims.. Jan 13, 2011.. A prominent Canadian producer of generic pharmaceuticals has withdrawn a bid to stay one of two parallel arbitration claims brought against the United States of America.. Apotex Inc.. , alleges in each claim, that the United States has breached foreign investment protections contained in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).. The company had sought to stay one claim, while the other moved forward.. However, following objections voiced by lawyers for the United States, Apotex has withdrawn its request for a stay.. Thus, the two claims will run concurrently, at least until the jurisdictional phase has concluded.. Apotex has reserved the right to seek a stay of one of the cases at the merits phase.. Jurisdictional hearings in the two cases are scheduled for February of 2012, with a briefing schedule recently agreed by the parties.. (Because investor-state arbitrations under the NAFTA are conducted with broad transparency, a copy of the tribunal s recent procedural order is available online.. *).. As previously reported by.. , Apotex alleges that it has been denied justice by the U.. Federal Courts, as a result of the handling by a New York Court of a request by Apotex for a Declaratory Judgment which the company says would have brought much-needed clarity to a patent dispute with the U.. pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.. That dispute arose out of Apotex s desire to begin marketing a generic version of the popular anti-depressant Zoloft.. Following the filing of this NAFTA claim, the company filed a second NAFTA claim in relation to the treatment by the U.. Courts, and certain regulatory agencies, of Apotex s bid to market a generic version of the prescription  ...   advertising dispute.. BRIEFLY NOTED: Canadian generic pharmaceutical company files second NAFTA claim against United States.. Court declines to set aside NAFTA award; tribunal’s expansive view of investment encompasses sale of goods from parent to foreign subsidiary for purposes of onward sale.. Investors in Nova Scotia quarry lay out legal arguments in NAFTA claim against Canada.. Canada settles NAFTA claim by pulp & paper company for $130 Million; spotlight turns to federal government’s being on hook for actions of province.. Government (of Canada) prevails in NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration; claimant (Merrill & Ring) weighing options.. Arbitrators in NAFTA arbitration reject all claims against United States in tobacco industry dispute.. Canada expands on defences to NAFTA claim over environmental assessment of Nova Scotia quarry; government says regulatory goals and project differences may justify different treatments for different projects.. Canadian Supreme Court refuses to set aside arbitral award due to tribunal’s willingness to factor cross-border “trade” losses into valuation of an investment.. Will gold mine at centre of failed NAFTA expropriation claim have profitable future?.. ANALYSIS: Glamis case hinges on definition of minimum standard; award likely to fuel debate in pending NAFTA cases.. ICSID Tribunal corrects award so that it will be shielded from taxation.. NAFTA quarrying and shipping claim against Canada will be open to the public.. Renewable energy arbitration claims on horizon, but states take differing approaches to public disclosure.. Canada sees two new Chapter 11 Notices of Intent.. BRIEFLY NOTED: United States seeks public input into Model Bilateral Investment Treaty review process.. United States Government prevails in Glamis Gold arbitration under NAFTA.. Tribunal selected to hear U.. investor’s claim that Canada mistreated pulp mill investment.. Investor turns to courts in attempt to challenge a denial of benefits determination in NAFTA dispute..

    Original link path: /articles/20110114_6
    Open archive

  • Title: Arbitrators decide to hear Canada’s objections to NAFTA garbage disposal investment dispute as a preliminary matter - Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter)
    Descriptive info: Arbitrators decide to hear Canada’s objections to NAFTA garbage disposal investment dispute as a preliminary matter.. Nov 25, 2010.. By Jennifer M.. Cabrera and Luke Eric Peterson.. Arbitrators hearing an expropriation claim filed by a US businessman against the Government of Canada have ordered that Canada s jurisdictional objections to the case should be heard prior to any consideration of the merits.. Canada contends that Pennsylvania businessman Vito Gallo has failed to tender sufficient evidence to prove that he owned a Canadian company at the time that the company s controversial waste disposal business was allegedly expropriated.. In September of this year, the Tribunal signaled that it would bifurcate the arbitration proceedings, so as to deal with Canada s jurisdictional objections as a priority matter.. Further to this, the Tribunal has requested that the claimant provide any additional evidence that would substantiate amounts contributed to the Canadian enterprise or demonstrate how the claimant participated in the decision making process of the enterprise prior to the date of the alleged expropriation.. Oral hearings on the jurisdictional objections are slated for the week of January 31-February 4, 2011.. 2004 legislation halted waste disposal scheme.. The NAFTA arbitration centers on legislation enacted in 2004 in Ontario, Canada s most populous province.. The Adams Mine Lake Act prohibited the disposal of waste in a water-filled abandoned mine site in northeastern Ontario.. The legislation also revoked previously granted permits conditionally permitting waste disposal at the so-called Adams Mine Lake, and prohibited legal challenges to the Act from being brought in municipal courts.. (As is noted below, the Act did provide for compensation).. Mr.. Gallo, the current owner of the Canadian-incorporated enterprise that sought to build and operate a landfill at the Adams Mine, argues that Canada is liable for an indirect expropriation of his investments and a violation of his legitimate expectations.. He also claims a denial of justice based on the Act s nullification of a 2003 legal action for specific performance wherein his company sought to compel Ontario s Ministry of Natural Resources to sell a parcel of land adjacent to the proposed waste disposal site.. In addition to questioning Mr.. Gallo s standing to bring the claim, Canada counters that the Canadian company lacked the necessary regulatory authorization to operate a landfill, and that a provisional certification of approval, issued by Ontario s Ministry of the Environment in 1999, was never an investment capable of being expropriated under international law.. Canada queries whether Gallo owned Canadian company prior to enactment of law.. Gallo, a businessman and long-time figure in Pennsylvania state government, claims in a heavily redacted section of his publicly-available* Memorial that he incorporated the Canadian enterprise in question in June 2002, and that the Adams Mine was soon after purchased from its previous owners and transferred to his company.. He affirms that he is the sole and controlling owner of 100% of the shares in the company.. Canada argues that the Tribunal cannot exercise jurisdiction over Mr.. Gallo s claims, citing a lack of evidence that Mr.. Gallo was in any way connected with the Adams Mine waste disposal business prior to the enactment of the Act in April 2004.. Instead, it claims in a somewhat-less-heavily redacted section of its  ...   provincial government.. (It is understood that the Canadian backers of the project enjoyed close ties to an earlier government, however relations took a down turn when a new political party came into office in Ontario in 2003).. Gallo claims his legitimate expectations were frustrated.. Based on the 1999 provisional certification and other permits issued, Mr.. Gallo claims he had a legitimate expectation that his company could establish and operate a waste disposal facility at the Adams Mine site.. He says this legitimate expectation was "arbitrarily" deprived by the Adams Mine Lake Act.. Canada argues that neither NAFTA s investment protections (including its Article 1105) nor customary international law protect an investor s legitimate expectations, but in any event contends that Mr.. Gallo was never given any specific assurances that the Adams Mine site could be used as a landfill.. Conflicting facts underlie Gallo s denial of justice claim.. Gallo s denial of justice claim relates to an action brought in 2003 to enforce an offer by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to sell additional land (the so-called Borderlands) necessary for the operation of the landfill under the certificate of approval, and for which the company had already paid over $50,000.. 00.. He claims that the subsequent Act of the Ontario Legislature prohibited him from obtaining any redress for this breach from municipal courts.. Canada argues in response that the action for specific performance was settled by the parties prior to enactment of the 2004 legislation.. Indeed, Canada claims that the Canadian enterprise settled the lawsuit in exchange for the incorporation of several amendments into the final version of the legislation.. This account appears to contradict that offered in Mr.. Gallo s Memorial, in which he claims that the company was never consulted either before or after passage of the Act, and that the legislation was presented to the company as a fait accompli.. Gallo also criticizes the provisions of the law which permit investors to petition Ontario courts to award compensation due under the legislation but not to otherwise challenge the Act.. He characterizes this scheme as inadequate under NAFTA Article 1110, which protects against uncompensated expropriations.. Canada insists the provisions of the Act are adequate, pointing to the fact that compensation under the Act has been offered to and accepted by other parties with an interest in the Adams Mine.. Canada argues that legislation did not cause enterprise s financial woes.. Gallo has requested damages equaling the fair market value of a partially developed, but fully-permitted, mega-waste landfill site, fixing the value at the time of the Act around USD $105 million.. Canada has sought to demonstrate that the venture which lacked requisite permits and was allegedly encumbered by conflicting legal claims to the site had failed in its project to develop the abandoned Adams Mine into a waste disposal facility.. Citing the ICSID arbitration decision in Biwater Gauff v.. Tanzania, Canada argues that the Act could not have caused damage to a project that had no value as an operating landfill in 2004, and that Mr.. Gallo s damages should be limited to his sunk investment costs.. **.. * Documents related to the case can be found.. ** For our reporting on the Biwater case see.. this link..

    Original link path: /articles/20101126_9
    Open archive

  • Title: Arbitrators in Chemtura v. Canada NAFTA arbitration take economical route in finding no treaty breaches - Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter)
    Descriptive info: Arbitrators in Chemtura v.. Canada NAFTA arbitration take economical route in finding no treaty breaches.. Sep 15, 2010.. The Government of Canada has prevailed in an important NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration with the US chemical producer Chemtura, according to a copy of the now-available August 2, 2010 arbitral award.. In the award, a tribunal consisting of Swiss law professor Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Judge Charles N.. Brower, and Cambridge University law professor James Crawford, rejects all claims by Chemtura that the company suffered unfair, discriminatory and expropriative treatment at the hands of Canadian regulatory authorities.. Chemtura had complained that a regulatory review and eventual phase-out of lindane-based seed treatments had denied the company the NAFTA protections owed to it as a foreign investor selling pesticide products in Canada.. Chemtura contended that a special review of its products was poorly-run and biased, and that the company encountered serious delays in getting approval for replacement products.. However, in an economical 81 page award, the arbitrators took a dim view of Chemtura s claims going so far as to remark upon the claimant s elusive behaviour and its occasionally disingenuous and inconsistent arguments in the arbitration.. Indeed, after dismissing all of Chemtura s claims, arbitrators signalled (with scant elaboration) that it would be fair for the claimant to bear the costs of the arbitration (688,219USD), and that it would be just and appropriate for the firm to reimburse Canada for half of its 5.. 778 Million CAD legal costs.. The tribunal s award is notable for not delving into the intricacies of treaty interpretation and construction, and for not setting forth any lengthy accounts of the tribunals reading of the NAFTA protections.. Whether this reflects divergences between the tribunal members on key substantive issues, or merely a shared affinity for adjudicative economy, the result is an award which leaves many questions untouched in the course of resolving a set of claims which were not backed up by the facts.. NAFTA Article 1105 is at centre of case as tribunal reviews fairness and due process.. The bulk of the arbitral award is dedicated to unpacking the dense factual arguments raised by Chemtura in an effort to show that Canada had denied it the benefit of the NAFTA Article 1105 Minimum Standard.. Here, the tribunal noted that the three NAFTA parties had clarified in a binding 2001 interpretive statement that Article 1105 was not an endlessly capacious standard, but rather an offer of the customary international law (CIL) standard for the treatment of aliens.. However, the tribunal added that this CIL standard has evolved over time, and that the vast number of bilateral investment treaties in existence had some impact on this evolution.. (The tribunal did not elaborate on the means by which treaties targeted at protecting one category of aliens, foreign investors, would affect the broader protection accorded to all aliens under customary international law.. While signaling that it would take account of the evolution of customary international law in setting forth the detailed meaning of Article 1105, the tribunal indicated that it would do so as necessary as it analyzed each specific Canadian measure impugned  ...   the idea that regulatory delays might give rise to some material economic impact on a foreign investor, but observed that the claimant had asserted no independent damages arising from long-running regulatory reviews.. The tribunal s brief discussion of this issue was redolent of a few other investment treaty arbitrations where tribunals appeared to entertain the notion that treaty breaches may or may not arise depending upon whether there was some measurable economic loss.. Tribunal defers to NAFTA governments views on MFN clause.. In an effort to circumvent the fact that NAFTA Article 1105 is tethered to the minimum standard of treatment owed to aliens, the claimant invoked the NAFTA s Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in an effort to import in other (potentially more generous) fair and equitable treatment clauses from other treaties concluded by Canada with other states.. However, arbitrators deferred to the wishes of the three NAFTA parties, Canada, the USA and Mexico, who had each argued in the Chemtura case that the MFN clause could not be used in this fashion so as to detour around the parties earlier efforts to clarify the content of Article 1105.. At the same time, the arbitrators seemed to suggest that the customary international law standard encompasses the fair and equitable treatment protections found in other investment treaties:.. in determining the standard of treatment set by Article 1105 of NAFTA, the Tribunal has taken into account the evolution of international customary law as a result.. inter alia.. of the conclusion of numerous BITs providing for fair and equitable treatment.. Arbitrators nod to global regulatory context and other international obligations.. Also of interest, arbitrators placed some weight on the fact that many countries had taken steps to restrict or ban the use of lindane.. Arbitrators also appeared to take seriously Canada s claims that its actions were taken as a result of its obligations under international law conventions in the environmental field.. While arbitrators did not view these considerations as immunizing Canada s actions from review, they appeared to deem them as evidence of the government s having acted in good faith vis a vis Chemtura and its products.. Police Powers exception recognized.. On the facts of the case, arbitrators saw no substantial deprivation of Chemtura s investments such that there might be an expropriation for which Canada must answer under the NAFTA.. Moreover, in a development that might have been more widely heralded a decade ago, arbitrators also signalled their view that Canada s actions fell within that country s police powers under international law.. However, the battle over the police powers exception and whether it may exempt a state from paying compensation for an action which otherwise gives rise to a substantial deprivation of a foreign investment - has taken on somewhat less importance in recent years.. Generally speaking, substantial deprivations of property arise infrequently in investment treaty claims, and investor-claimants are more likely to pin their hopes on generous readings of the fair and equitable treatment treaty standard in an effort to hold governments liable for various actions or omissions.. * The award is available.. ** The 2001 interpretive statement is..

    Original link path: /articles/20100916_11
    Open archive

  • Title: Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter)
    Descriptive info: Recent Articles in North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).. Arbitrators nix bid to hold Canadian government liable for treaty breaches due to phase-out of toxic chemical.. Aug 28, 2010.. Arbitrators terminate treaty claim after claimant fails to advance costs, but Government of Canada not entitled to reimbursement for 1,100 hours spent prepping case.. Tribunal chosen to hear pharma company’s claim that it suffered denial of justice due to foreign court’s handling of prescription drug lawsuits.. Aug 5, 2010.. Canada moves to terminate NAFTA claim, after claimant fails to post funds for arbitration.. May 26, 2010.. Apr 9, 2010.. NAFTA claim by Dow Chemical Corp on slow track as other Canadian Provinces persist with bans on contested lawn pesticide.. Nov 13, 2009.. ANALYSIS: NAFTA challenge ruling may stir debate as to implications in Energy Charter Treaty cases.. Oct 30, 2009.. Arbitrator steps down in UNCITRAL arbitration; obliged to choose between arbitrator work and Gov't advisory work.. Corn Products asks tribunal to correct award so as to take account of likely taxation of award in Mexico.. Oct 14, 2009.. ANALYSIS: Slow Gov't decision-making, on environment & approvals, a breach of treaty obligations to foreign investors?.. Sep 19, 2009.. Canada sets out arguments in NAFTA claim arising out of environmental assessment of quarry and shipping project.. Mexican cement company puts US Government on notice of NAFTA claim.. In largest NAFTA award to date, Cargill prevails in claim against Mexico.. Damages awarded in one of three NAFTA sweetener arbitrations against Mexico.. Sep 2, 2009.. Aug 6, 2009.. Jun 29, 2009.. Jun 9, 2009.. May 27, 2009.. NAFTA Claims: Mexican trucking association files Notice of Arbitration against US Government.. May 11, 2009.. Dow Chemicals moves forward with NAFTA arbitration against Canada over provincial ban on law pesticides.. Apr 17, 2009.. Analysis: arbitrators diverge as to whether Mexican tax is  ...   to expropriation or other treaty breach.. Jan 22, 2009.. Canada files first written defence in NAFTA dispute over phase-out of hazardous agro-chemical Lindane.. ICSID declines Canada's request to discontinue Exxon claim due to inactivity; Claimants name arbitrator.. Jan 5, 2009.. Canadian generic pharmaceutical maker files notice of arbitration against United States; Apotex files NAFTA claim.. Claimant in garbage disposal dispute with Canada seeks closed-door hearings and wants amicus curiae to pay $25,000 fee.. Nov 12, 2008.. Claimant and Canada exchange arguments in claim brought by US citizen for alleged expropriation of waste disposal business.. ANALYSIS: Stricter Chemicals Regulations by Canada Attract NAFTA Lawsuits.. Oct 22, 2008.. Dow Chemicals puts Canada on notice of arbitration over lawn pesticides ban; unrelated claim also threatened in relation to fishing lodge.. ANALYSIS: Spectre of NAFTA suit over investments in Canada’s health care sector has long been subject of speculation.. Sep 17, 2008.. US citizen files notice of intent to sue Canada over alleged NAFTA breaches in relation to private surgical facility.. ANALYSIS: Rare for investors to pay state's defence costs, despite recent rulings in Plama v.. Bulgaria and U.. arbitrations.. Merits claims in Plama v.. Bulgaria fail; investor complained of environmental and tax liabilities, and worker “riots”.. investors launch NAFTA claim against Canada over conduct of environmental assessment of quarry project.. Jul 28, 2008.. Award in ADM & TLIA v.. Mexico finds discrimination & imposition of performance requirements, but no expropriation.. Jul 16, 2008.. Award in Archer Daniels Midland & Tate and Lyle Ingredients America v.. Mexico is released in redacted form; Following partial arbitration victory, US agriculture giants continue to seek further damages from Mexico.. Canada, USA agree to nip expropriation claim in bud in tax case.. Jun 18, 2008.. Schedule set for chemical company’s case against Canada; hearings to be closed to public.. Jun 3, 2008..

    Original link path: /search?category=45&searchfrom=60
    Open archive

  • Title: U.S. investor turns to court in effort to confirm CAFTA award and put pressure on Guatemala to pay $16 million - Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter)
    Descriptive info: investor turns to court in effort to confirm CAFTA award and put pressure on Guatemala to pay $16 million.. Jun 11, 2013..

    Original link path: /articles/20130611_1
    Open archive

  • Title: Victims of Stanford ponzi scheme threaten to arbitrate vs. United States under trade and investment treaties - Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter)
    Descriptive info: Victims of Stanford ponzi scheme threaten to arbitrate vs.. United States under trade and investment treaties.. Mar 19, 2013.. Professed victims of a multi-Billion Dollar ponzi scheme orchestrated by disgraced U.. financier Alan Stanford have filed formal notices warning the U.. Government of potential claims under a handful of that country s international trade and investment treaties.. The filing of these notices under U.. treaties with Central America, Uruguay, Chile and Peru - sets in motion mandatory waiting periods under the relevant treaties, after which the claimants could request formal arbitration of their claims.. At the crux of the threatened claims is an allegation that U.. financial services regulators had suspicions that Mr.. Stanford and his Stanford Financial Group (SFG) of companies presided over a potentially fraudulent scheme, but that regulators failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and act upon those suspicions over a period of many years.. Following the discovery in late 2008 of a separate ponzi scheme operated by U.. businessman Bernard Madoff, U.. authorities swooped on Mr.. Stanford, shuttering his operation, and laying various financial charges.. Stanford was ultimately convicted of fraud and other offences in March of 2012 and sentenced to 110 years in prison.. The would-be claimants threatening arbitrations against the United States allege that their respective losses could have been averted had U.. regulators acted with a modicum of due diligence in relation to the matter.. In their respective notices, the prospective claimants set forth a series of allegations as to the long pattern of lax oversight accorded to Mr.. Stanford and SFG by the staff of the U.. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).. Moreover, it is alleged that SEC staff may have devoted less attention to possible financial fraud because most of the victims appeared to be foreign (Latin American) investors in the United States, rather than U.. nationals.. Total claims exceed 50 million USD.. The largest bloc of these prospective claimants consists of two distinct groupings of Peruvian nationals that allege total losses exceeding $48.. 5 million US.. Another smaller grouping of Guatemalan, Costa  ...   as a nexus and home of the Stanford Financial Group:.. The Claimants made investments, directly and/or indirectly, in and through the Stanford Financial Group of companies in the United States, primarily in (what were later revealed to be) fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by the Stanford International Bank ( SIB CDs ), an Antiguan-based instrumentality of the Stanford Financial Group of companies ( SFG which was managed and controlled, and had its principal base and center of main interest, in the United States.. The various claimants have retained as co-counsel a Canadian lawyer, Todd Weiler, who specializes in claims that seek to explore the outer boundaries of the NAFTA s investment chapter.. Of the 16 known claims notified against the United States pursuant to the investment chapter of NAFTA, Mr.. Weiler is believed to have worked as counsel or legal consultant on half of them.. Weiler is co-counsel in each of the threatened arbitrations with one or more U.. attorneys also representing the relevant claimants in each of the five discrete claims.. In many, but not all of the cases, Mr.. Weiler's co-counsel is a Texas-based attorney, Edward Valdespino of Strasburger Price, LLP.. Of the 16 investor claims threatened against the United States over the years, those that have gone to full arbitration, rather than being abandoned or settled, have yet to result in a victory for the claimant-investors.. Earlier Costa Rica case at ICSID had been brought by fleeced investors.. At first glance, the threatened claims are reminiscent of an international arbitration claim brought by a group of some 100 Canadian nationals that fell prey to an investment scam in Costa Rica, and later sought to argue that Costa Rican authorities had long failed to properly regulate their financial services market so as to protect investors from falling prey to scams.. However, as.. we ve reported.. , arbitrators dismissed that particular case in a 2010 decision, finding that the relevant claimants had not conducted their own due diligence into a seemingly too-good-to-be-true investment fund run out of a Costa Rica shopping mall..

    Original link path: /articles/20130319_1
    Open archive

  • Title: Investor gets a 2 million dollar bump to CAFTA award, but fails to convince tribunal to revisit other parts of award - Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter)
    Descriptive info: Investor gets a 2 million dollar bump to CAFTA award, but fails to convince tribunal to revisit other parts of award.. Feb 6, 2013..

    Original link path: /articles/20130207
    Open archive

  • Title: ICSID Annulment Committee weighs in with a ruling on Security for Costs in El Salvador mining case - Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter)
    Descriptive info: ICSID Annulment Committee weighs in with a ruling on Security for Costs in El Salvador mining case.. Sep 22, 2012..

    Original link path: /articles/20120922
    Open archive

  • Title: ANALYSIS: In first test of CAFTA ‘denial of benefits’ clause, arbitrators rule that U.S. ‘shell’ company not owed CAFTA protections for investments in El Salvador - Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter)
    Descriptive info: ANALYSIS: In first test of CAFTA ‘denial of benefits’ clause, arbitrators rule that U.. ‘shell’ company not owed CAFTA protections for investments in El Salvador.. Jun 4, 2012..

    Original link path: /articles/20120604_1
    Open archive


    Archived pages: 638