Member Info for Orbiter

Another interesting excerpt from the article I mention below. ..."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."

This is an interesting link and is written by an arbitration lawyer who has been involved in ICSID cases but is wary of the way it may operate. This below is a short exerpt but there are other equally interesting bits, and the link to this article is below that:- "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." http://www.derainsgharavi.com/2014/11/icsid-annulment-committees-the-elephant-in-the-room/

ref speracs point. The annulment of awards is discussed in the link below. It is probably quite relevant from section 10 and 5 minutes reading or more onwards untill you are bored, but annulmets have been discussed in depth here. I can see nothing that appears to cast doubt on our potential success here. The only doubt is whether ICSID wish to rewrite their own rule book to our disadvatage. https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/Background%20Paper%20on%20Annulment%20April%202016%20ENG.pdf

Uncanny, Maestro, Same here.

cossy I keep thinking, we have only heard CHL's viewpoint on the tribunal proceedings and the annulment claim but try as I might I cannot think of a viable defence that ROI could put up if it came to another arbitration, or a viable reason for the ad hoc committee to defend the judgement against CHL. I can usually see other party's points of view and I take consideration of the fact that us CHL Shareholders are of course biased. Try as I might I cannot see a way ICSID come out well? Its a pity ICSID has the final word even if it means they look even more stupid.

If as maestro says, a lot of professional lawyers are examining this award, what are ICSID to do. They will be damned if they uphold the claim or damned if they annul, either way they will lose credibility. How will they justify either decision? Which side of the argument is least damaging for them or will they just hold their hands up and confess to major errors or even misconduct of some sort?

I've just read Churchills account of the original claims and counterclaims regarding the Licences and Forgery allegations. I do now really wonder how ICSID can claim Churchill did not conduct sufficient due diligence, the cannot have been aware of the full circumstances? I think one of Churchills arbitration arguments were that ICSID concluded insufficient due diligence without allowing Churchill to defend this aspect of the arbitration. If you take 5 minutes to read the report you will see what Churchill mean, what a travesty! See below:- https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita1042.pdf

I don't think this applies to us ! I think that when companies and States sign up to ICSID they agree that ICSID has the final say over the award or annulment, ICSDID therefore is its own master and not subjugated to outside courts.

Its a pity Churchill Mining, and ICSID arent of much interest to mainstream journalists. So, GPback have you got any useful connections i.e journalists that can follow this story. I have contacted a firm of arbitration lawyers one of which has written the odd article about the arbitration in the past asking if he intends to follow the annulment. He said maybe if I get the time.

sperac Where did you get info regarding only 1 in 30 cases annuled? From a quick scan from the below link appx 4 out of 30 cases resulted in full 5 or 6 resulted in partial annulment, some other of the cases resulted in ooc settlement or other results not registered as annulment. https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/meterial/dci_2010_icsid_annulment_cases.pdf

D Q denied that there were talks or an offer of an OOC settlement. The Reuters article was from an 'unidentified source'. Its so easy for anyone to say I have got a big story but I will not put my name to it?

GPback You say a previous OOC settlement has been rejected?? When was this?

Uncanny, Yes that pretty much sums it up. Whatever happens lets hope it's quick.

Do we know, fom past cases maybe, how long theses take to form and do we go to the back of the queue?

onlooker I cant see ROI capitulating too soon, they have just won an international tribunal. Nothing else has been decided since.

Blitzed, Though I agree with a lot of your sentiments in your latest post, you say we should 'move on'. After the arbitration judgement I immediately came to terms with losing my money but having read the annulment application I think we have a fighting chance despite the biased ICSID. If you really wanted to 'move on' as you say the first step would be to stop reading this b/board, but as you are still here I guess you must secretly be more optimistic than you let on? Dont worry you are with like minded spirits and its o.k to be angry.

Maestro, You mention, you think that CHL have fresh evidence of ROI's misdeeds. Surely this can only be used if there is need for a new tribunal and not for the annulment? I presume you infer that the threat of this information should be enough to encourage ROI to settle before a new tribunal, if of course we get annulment?

Toonman Your point has been my worry since CHL said they were going for annulment. ICSID errors seem so frequent you wonder how ICSID 'experts' can judge as they did? What route do they now take, If ICSID overturn their own result they will look stupid for making such basic mistakes in the first place and if they maintain their position without well argued reason they will also undermine themselves, so as they are in a lose lose situation they might as well maintain their current position to achieve the original aim if indeed that aim was influenced politically? Maybe, though, it is encouraging that ICSID allowed stay of costs which I guess they could have refused.

So I guess the next stage after appointment of ad hoc commitee is decision to stay of costs or not.

So, just to be sure, does this mean that the annulment criteria has potentially been met and this will result in a study and judgement of the claim?