Member Info for CitizenTS

GREENspot's name is surely the giveaway that it's a spikey, biased poster.

Yeah Cyan but your stance is moistly crap these days ... and spare is the whingeing about sensitivities please

@godawful, comments on dilution etc
'fraid a few things there.
It's not an appeal so there's no appeal to win. They've submitted a form to apply for an annulment.
The share issue didn't dilute anyone who took up their entitlement and maybe bought a few. For myself and others it worked the opposite way round as my stake in the market cap increased.
To be clear your position, as you have said, is that you were over invested and busted by your greed. You couldn't afford to subscribe despite begging those around you to help.
It's just your problem.
Shame but we have to tolerate you.

Italy has "submitted an application ... to annul" and "requested a provisional stay of the enforcement". Careful wording indeed imho, no doubt okayed by lawyers.
Thing is you don't need to ask ICSID to submit an application to annul, it's not like asking for leave to appeal. There's nothing to request, no suggestion it has any chance, and no enforcement stay comes with it (unlike with an appeal) . Anyone can submit an annulment application. The stay of enforcement is completely separate (unlike with leave to appeal).
The annulment has next to no chance anyway imho given unanimity, jurisdiction and other history.
More interesting will be whether they get a stay. Most likely not. That could be decided much quicker and without a stay the judgement will be so easily sellable. There might be peeps that want to buy a piece before the stay result to take a view on that, and perhaps a get piece for a bit less.
The £3mln fee is not very welcome but note "productive discussions"!

Yes, interesting to see the new holders.

@Mirasol
Not sure of your point but we know ...
you've pretty much told us all before now you're a stale bear looking to get back in ??

ha! You said it LaFule

... or if you're out and looking to get back in eh Mirssh*t?

@Mirasol
Thanks for reminding us of your stance

@ Mirasol "... no foreign jurisdiction" blah blah.
There are jurisdictions where ICSID awards can be enforced whilst annulment requests are proceeding. Virtually has to be, if only because annulment requests often proceed without a stay of the award.
Said it before but annulment is not an appeal. With an appeal you get a stay along with leave to appeal, often on the same day as or simultaneous with a verdict.
However its always been a straight line from award to enforcement for ICSID arbitration. That's not changed and its the basis on which all the participating countries have signed up. You can always ask for a stay of course and it may be granted, though it should be noted that as of this moment there is no stay in force! Presume Italy will ask for one if/when they request an annulment.
That is all just "as is" seems to me. Should be more discussion imho on here around ICSID stays of awards, the difference from the usual appeal scenario, when they happen and when they (often) don't etc. A possibly more contentious view is that its unlikely RoI will get a stay if/when they ask. Its not that common to get one and RoI's case would be weak.
Would be quite a spectacle at that stage!
just saying ...

@spacehoppa, in many jurisdictions they're not "stringing it out" even if they ask for an annulment.
See earlier post.
An annulment is not an appeal. Not even sure they have to ask the panel for "leave to annul", like with an appeal, where a yes to permission to appeal means the award or equivalent is stayed in the meantime in a recognised way. It's just a "Jupiter shot". For many jurisdictions the award remains completely enforceable whilst anyone might ask for an annulment. Not much changes just because someone asks!

Well none of us know what the RoI are going to do because, as governments come and go in the public sphere, the state's actions appear hidden in secrecy, arbitrariness and, many suspect, endemic corruption.
The state's tax revenues are for diverting by its bureaucracy to whatever corrupt interests have their paw in the pot.
Exactly what ICSID is there to counter.
Any annulment attempt would be given short shrift imho.
And annulment is not appeal. It's slightly outside the "legal" process. Several jurisdictions treat the award as completely in effect for enforcement purposes in my understanding. Rather like a Catholic marriage is still in effect until an annulment is granted. Not much changes just because they ask!

anyone noticed the Stock Ex website having some trouble showing trades for rkh this morning?

Know it doesn'matter but annoying thing about Grauniad piece is that ICSID is there precisely to be independent of secretive and corrupt states (yes, bullseye on Italy for this one) ... and also of political opinion such as in Grauniad.
Merits of the case are all that matters, which probably is what do gets up the Grauniad

"throw away" email sounds a clever idea

I'll go by what you say on drivel speakers LaFule
takes one to know one as they say

@DEM, re Bor, I think that's right!

Yes, DEM, existing cases are part of the phase out, but it's new cases that would be the real issue.

At any rate the implications of, and timetable match or mismatches with, the ECT/EU agreement may be a factor - though granted it ought to be a purely legal merits exercise.

See also
https://www.enyolaw.com/posts/211/modernisation-of-the-energy-charter-treaty-boon-or-bust-for-states-seeking-greater-regulatory-latitude-on-energy-policy