The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Thanks Fib, a chat or email to BOD by anyone with good contact to try and understand exactly where we are in the case, and what more is being discussed before a decision by ICSID, should not constitute an issue as long as its just clarification of what is already known. We could ask if BOD are aware of an expected timeframe for the decision, does the fact that the case is still pending after post hearing briefs mean Rock have won the case, are we actually at the stage of discussing the size of the award? We might perhaps, get some clarification. Worth a try?
"An unusual word to use, ''award'', not ''case''. Perhaps someone with friendly communication with one of the greedy piggies could see if they could clarify what was meant by award??"
Award in the context of an arbitration means nothing more than the judgment.
It's one of the first things I would have put in a farm in contract. A deadline for moving to production. Didn't occur to Moody though, the genius stockbroker he is
Thank you SpaceHoppa, as that (EU law attempt) was in 26 June 19 I was looking for any articals backing up the September/October info and as you and fudstone identified all there is:
From the previous links to ICSID website:
ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14
"Status of Proceeding: Pending
Latest Development: October 30, 2019 - The Tribunal holds a hearing on post-hearing briefs in Paris."
As before:
https://icsiddev.prod.acquia-sites.com/cases/case-database/case-detail?CaseNo=ARB/17/14
To Yanbu-arabia: Hi YA, No such protection in place according to a reply I recieved from Sam Moody when I posed that question and any similiar penalty protections put into RKH/PMO'S contract.
Rgds Sft
Surfit, there is to my knowledge no unambiguous statement saying Rock won the case and are awaiting the quantum award.
However apart from the logic that they surely have not lost as it would have been dismissed by now, there was the wording in the half-yearly stating
'Post-hearing briefings were submitted in October and November 2019. Feedback from the Tribunal has indicated that** work continues on the award** although the process has been delayed due to disruptions caused by COVID-19. No guidance on the timing of the award was provided by the Tribunal.
Rockhopper continues to believe it has strong prospects of recovering very significant monetary damages - on the basis of lost profits'.
An unusual word to use, ''award'', not ''case''. Perhaps someone with friendly communication with one of the greedy piggies could see if they could clarify what was meant by award??
Talking about Breach of Contract , the RKH bod , if they had got any sense , could have sued PMO for Breach of Contract due to an implied condition of Exceeding Passage of Time .
The thing is in the history lesson I can not find any thing regarding a finding in the abitration that confirms Rockhopper has won the case. The only item that is clear it the tribunals "decision" the they can not use EU law as a defence?
Can anyone "in the know" point me to the page paragraph where it does state a ruling in favour of RKH claim?
Googled meaning of of award in law:
"To concede; to give by judicial determination; to rule in favor of after an evaluation of the facts, evidence, or merits. The decision made by a panel of arbitrators or commissioners, a jury, or other authorized individuals in a controversy that has been presented for resolution".
So as I see it the case for or against has yet to be decided?
Rgds Sft
On the other hand................https://www.pwc.co.uk/forensic-services/disputes/assets/assessing-damages-for-breach-of-contract.pdf
Page 156
I would suggest that the award be based on the PoO at the time RKH initiated it`s program.
That is what the program to recover oil was based on ,no one could project with certainty what the PoO is or was going to be .
The FID was based on that current market price ,PoO may be down now but who knows where it would be over the projected life of OM.
JMHO
This hasn't much/anything to do with the volatility of PoO, which has always been an issue.
This is more to do with setting a realistic valuation for lost profits, just as the World PoO collapsed in unique circumstances, added to the fact that World oil supremacy is already entering its final phase(s) before having to give way to alternatives.
Under these circumstances, setting a realistic valuation that all parties can accept is nigh-on impossible.
POO has often been volitile so I should think Rocks claim is not in anyway unique, so there will be a set established equation for judging lost future costs. The seemingly long delay, almost a year now, is somewhat unusual I feel.
I actually now don't believe it's more than the time avarage times for ICSID tribunals to come to a decision, perhaps the pandemic set it back a couple of months, but ICSID is holding hearings via remote settings for months.
If, I look at it in laymans terms, lost profits can't be based on future prices as no one knows what they will be, but historical data could be used to guage the previous averages of POO, through the various recent major events, e.g banking crisis, Iraqi war , world usage and POO during these periods. Depends if they would do that and how far they go back .
That is if they agree with RKH's claim, it's surely the difference between a large payout or one that covers sunk costs and extras spent on OM.
Any payout to cover RKH funds beyond end of 2022 would be welcome.
Interesting history lesson, but those who have been following this knew all this very well already.
What no one seems to be able to explain is the procedure that must currently be under way, where the tribunal has probably reached its conclusion, but is holding back for some reason, probably because the PoO has plummeted in very unusual circumstances, so how do they arrive at a satisfactory figure for lost profits, when the future direction of economic activity and the corresponding PoO isn't just uncertain, but virtually unknown.
If there were to be no award at all, the tribunal could announce that immediately, so the indications are OK, but the figure highly speculative unless the tribunal is allowed to defer its announcement.
Thankyou Surfit ,arguments dragged on but finally resolved.
Thank you for the links Surfit,
I haven't seen the first one before which seems a lot more informative.
Alas I will have to wait until after work to have a good read.
Sorry "ICSID"
Rgds Sft
Hello SpaceHoppa, thank for the post spent some time using that link and looking around for any more info:
This details the case history...best go right to the end......for reading "the decision"
https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-rockhopper-exploration-plc-rockhopper-italia-s-p-a-and-rockhopper-mediterranean-ltd-v-italian-republic-none-currently-available-friday-19th-may-2017
And
Summarised here also
https://harbourlitigationfunding.com/harbour-funded-claimant-defeats-jurisdictional-objections-in-icsid-arbitration/
How I see it, in the summary of link 1 is the grounds for dismissal on the Respondants using EU law merits have been denied but I do not undertand if we are still waiting for the ECI to actually still rule on the case itself?
i.e.
"(2) The Tribunal will address separately in its Award the remaining jurisdictional and/or merits issues in this case"
Comments anyone?
Rgds Sft
Looking at the list of ''Pending'' cases at ICSID, The Rock are listed 169 oldest out of 282
However ours seems to be the only one with the tag line.
Latest Development: October 30, 2019 - ''The Tribunal holds a hearing on post-hearing briefs in Paris''.
All the others that I looked at randomly, either older or younger cases, seem to still be active on-going or suspended.
The Rock seems to be the only one I saw stuck in the twilight zone of completed, but unawarded. Frustrating much!!!
https://icsiddev.prod.acquia-sites.com/cases/pending