News: ICsID TrIbunal DIsmIsses Rsm Production Corporation's . - IISD
Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Developmentwww.investmenttreatynews.orgApril 2009PAGE 1ICSID tribunal dismisses RSMProduction Corporation’s claimagainst GrenadaPAGE 2CIT Group settles with ArgentinaPAGE 3Reflections on Pakistan’sinvestment-treaty program after50 years: an interview with theformer Attorney General ofPakistan, Makhdoom Ali KhanPAGE 4European miners and South Africasuspend proceedingsPAGE 5Argentina ordered to placeUS 75 million in escrow pendingannulment decision on SempraawardPAGE 6Deutsche Bank targets Sri Lankawith a BIT claim connected to ahedging contractSouth African court judgmentbolsters expropriation charge overBlack Economic Empowermentlegislation in the mining sectorContact information:IISDInternational Environment House 29 chemin de Balexert1219 ChâtelaineGeneva, Switzerlanditn@iisd.orgICSID tribunal dismisses RSMProduction Corporation’s claimagainst GrenadaBy Damon Vis-Dunbarnews:An American businessman has failed inhis claim against Grenada under a 1996oil and gas agreement, in a contractdispute conducted before an ICSIDtribunal.Initiated in 2005, the ICSID claim wasone of a host of legal avenues pursuedby Jack J. Grynberg, the president andCEO of RSM Production Corporation, inan effort gain an exploration license foroil and gas reserves that may lie off thecoast of Grenada.RSM’s claim was pursuant to an ICSIDarbitration clause in an agreementbetween RSM and Grenada, whichprescribes the laws of Grenadaas the applicable law for settlingdisputes. In its claim, RSM soughtan order declaring that the 1996agreement was still in force and thatGrenada must grant RSM a license, oralternatively financial damages whichRSM estimated would exceed US 500million.The 1996 agreement between RSMand Grenada established a long-termarrangement for the exploration,and potential extraction, of oil andgas reserves. As a first step, RSM wasgranted an opportunity to apply for anexploration license within 90 days ofsigning the agreement, which Grenadawas obligated to award.However, a broadly worded forcemajeure clause, which made implicitreference to Grenada’s long-standingnegotiations with Venezuela andTrinidad & Tobago over maritimeboundaries, allowed RSM to delay itsapplication for the exploration license.Notably, the clause also called on RSMto “take all reasonable steps to removethe cause” of the force majeure.Fourteen days after the agreement wasinked, RSM notified Grenada that it wasinvoking force majeure, thereby stoppingthe clock on the 90-day period forapplying for an exploration license. RSMwould maintain force majeure statusfor the next 8 years, a period in whichMr. Grynberg played a dubious role inGrenada’s negotiations with Venezuelaand Trinidad & Tobago over maritimeboundaries.At a contested point in early 2004, RSMnotified Grenada that it was revokingforce majeure status, effectively resumingthe 90-day countdown that RSM hadavailable to apply for an explorationlicense.Indeed, the critical point of dispute iswhen RSM ended its declaration of forcemajeure, and in turn, at what point the90-day countdown resumed. Confusingmatters, two letters from RSM revokingforce majeure were sent on differentdates to different government bodies;moreover, while the second letter wasdated 27 February 2004, it wasn’treceived until mid-April.Ultimately, the Tribunal’s 13 March2009 ruling held RSM to a strict 90-dayperiod, including the 14 days that lapsedin 1996 between signing the agreementand RSM’s notice of force majeure, andresuming in January 2004 with RSM’sfirst letter revoking force majeure. As aresult, the Tribunal determined that the1996 agreement either lapsed as of endof March 2004, when the 90-day periodran out, or was lawfully terminated byGrenada in 2005.Continued on page 2
April 2009ICSID tribunal dismisses RSM.Continued from page 1While the Tribunal supported itsdecision using precedents set underEnglish law (Grenadian law wasthe applicable law, but the partiesagreed that, with respect to theissues in dispute, English commonlaw was the same as Grenadianlaw) it tested its conclusion againstthe principles of international law.Applying the commonly agreedmethods for interpreting treatiesunder international law, the Tribunalconcluded that it would have come tothe same decision.counsel claimed took on a distinctmodus operandi:In a counterclaim, Grenada chargedRSM with illegal misrepresentationunder Grenadian law, includingthe allegation that the companyexaggerated the financial resourcesat its disposal, falsely indicated that itwould begin work on certain aspectsof the agreement immediately, and hidthe fact that it intended to ‘farm-out’the activities under the agreement tolarger oil and gas companies.“The first step in this modus operandiis to ‘lock-up’ large, and often disputed,territories for long periods of timewith agreements that require little ofnothing from Mr. Grynberg (frequentlybecause of force majeure notices).He appears to target governmentsthat lack experience in the oil andgas business, using a combination ofslick salesmanship, glowing promisesand economic threats to procure suchagreements. Then, when the time andmarket conditions are right, he either‘farms out’ his contracts to seriousplayers; and/or sues everyone in sight.”Grenada charges investor with illegalmisrepresentationGrenada also accused Mr. Grynberg ofmisrepresenting himself as an expert inmaritime boundary negotiations.These counterclaims accompaniedsharp criticism of Mr. Grynberg’sbusiness strategy, which Grenada’snews: CITThe Tribunal concurred thatMr. Grynberg was not anexpert in maritime boundarynegotiations, describinghis approach as “secretive,unilateral, unauthorised,crude . backed up withwild threats and vexatiouslitigation if unsuccessful .”The Tribunal, however, rejected thecounterclaim, finding that in someinstances RSM had not made thealleged misrepresentations and inothers Mr. Grynberg had genuinelybelieved what he was saying was true,even though it was not.The Tribunal concurred that Mr.Grynberg was not an expert inmaritime boundary negotiations,describing his approach as “secretive,unilateral, unauthorised, crude .backed up with wild threats andvexatious litigation if unsuccessful .”However, despite the damningassessment of Mr. Grynberg’sinvolvement in the maritimeboundary negotiations, theseactions did not constitute fraudulentmisrepresentations, due to the factthat Mr. Grynberg subjectively believedthem to be true.The Tribunal would also go on toreject the other counterclaims relatedto misrepresentation. Although RSMoften offered vague or contradictorystatements with respect to its financialresources, these fell short of thelevel required to constitute illegalmisrepresentation under Grenadianlaw.Having dismissed RSM’s substantiveclaims and Grenada’s counterclaims,the Tribunal would order the parties tobear their own legal costs, and split thecosts of the arbitration.Group settles with ArgentinaThe American finance company CITGroup has reached a settlement withArgentina, bringing to close ICSIDarbitration proceedings which beganin 2003.CIT Group had been seeking someUS 124 million for alleged violations ofthe US-Argentina bilateral investmenttreaty, in one of the many disputesthat arose with foreign investors inthe wake of Argentina’s 2001-2002economic crisis.In a 20 March 2009 letter to the tribunal,counsel for CIT Group announcedthat it had reached an agreementwith Argentina, and requesteddiscontinuance of the arbitrationproceedings. Argentina concurred withthe request, and accepted to split thecost of the arbitration with CIT Group.2By Damon Vis-DunbarRequests by ITN to CIT Group forfurther information about thesettlement were not returned.Of the cases at ICSID launched byforeign investors against Argentina,eight have so far been discontinuedafter a settlement was reached. Anumber of others have been suspendedon the request of the disputing parties.
April 2009Reflections on Pakistan’s investmenttreaty program after 50 years: an interviewwith the former Attorney General of Pakistan,Makhdoom Ali KhanBy Lauge Skovgaard Poulsen and Damon Vis-Dunbarinterview:Pakistan inked the first ever bilateralinvestment treaty (BIT) with thegovernment of West Germany 50 yearsago, before going on to accumulate oneof the largest portfolios of BITs held bya developing country: some 47 in total,35 of which were signed in a flurry ofactivity between 1988 and 1999.However, in recent years, theexpansion of Pakistan’s investmenttreaty network has slowed downsubstantially. The timing is noaccident; the brakes were appliedat the same time that Pakistan facedits first lawsuit under a BIT in 2001by the Swiss multinational SociétéGénérale de Surveillance (SGS) underthe Switzerland-Pakistan BIT. Whilethe SGS dispute ended in a settlementfavourable to Pakistan, its effect on thePakistani administration at the timewas considerable.Pakistan’s Attorney General during theSGS dispute, and others that followed,was Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan. Tolearn more about the impact of thesedisputes on Pakistan’s investmenttreaty program during his tenure asAttorney General, ITN spoke to Mr.Khan in Karachi.ITN: How did you get involved withPakistan’s BIT-program?The Secretary of Law called me up in2001 and asked what I knew about theInternational Centre for Settlementof Investment Disputes (ICSID) andthis thing called a bilateral investmenttreaty (BIT). He informed me thatPakistan was being sued by SGS atICSID and asked how SGS could do that.To be perfectly honest, I did not havea clue, so I had to look it up on Google.I typed in ‘ICSID’ and ‘BIT’, and that’show I learned about these instrumentsfor the first time.I asked the Ministry of Industries, whowere responsible for BITs at the time,how these treaties were signed. I wastold that when the President, or PrimeMinister, went abroad, our foreignmissions would tell the Ministry thatBITs are ‘one of the doables’. SincePakistan had signed BITs without anyconsequences for a long time, everyonesimply considered the treaties a pieceof paper, something for the press, agood photo opportunity—and that wasthe end of it.Notwithstanding a few verylearned officials within thebureaucracy, there is nota shared understanding inPakistan that negotiatingBITs requires a lot ofeffort and - perhaps mostimportantly - legal expertise.Now, one option was of course not toparticipate in the SGS proceedings andinstead try to rely on our local courts toavoid enforcement of a possible award.But I advised against this option,as it would give Pakistan’s courts abad reputation internationally. Thegovernment at the time agreed, butwe knew it was going to be expensive.Recall that in 1999 and early 2000,most aid had been cut off to Pakistandue to our nuclear tests, so the casehad the potential to wipe-out ourentire stock of foreign reserves had itgone in the investor’s favor. Luckily forPakistan, it didn’t.ITN: What subsequent impact did theSGS case have?The secretariat of the Chief Executive[former President Pervez Musharraf]3issued a directive which provided thatno more BITs were to be signed byPakistan until the Attorney General’soffice was consulted and all othergovernment stakeholders wereonboard. This was a first for Pakistan.Previously, I don’t think any ministry—except that in charge—even knew thatthe BITs had been signed, and I couldn’tfind files on record demonstrating thatmeaningful negotiations had actuallytaken place. The maximum level ofinput to the negotiations from Pakistanappears to have been proof-reading,and at times, albeit rarely, some notvery significant suggestions on the text.Secondly, the Board of InvestmentBOI [the agency now in charge ofBITs] and I brought in experts fromabroad to speak with the governmentstakeholders. If someone of any notein the world of public or privateinternational law was visiting theregion, we would invite them to comeand speak. This was an educationprocess of sorts, allowing us tounderstand what could, and couldnot, be the consequences of signingBITs. This, combined with a coupleof excellent officials within the BOI,meant that Pakistan’s negotiatingcapacity was upgraded significantly atthe time.ITN: Has this ‘education process’succeeded?I don’t think that is the case. While thePakistani team involved in the longand difficult BIT-negotiations with theUnited States [which remain ongoing]has been relatively well-preparedand rigorous in their approach, thesenegotiations were special because ofthe political relationship between ourtwo countries and the scope of the U.S.proposal. So despite these efforts, I’mafraid the worst is yet to come. When IContinued on page 4
April 2009Reflections on Pakistan’s investment-treaty program.resigned as Attorney General in 2007,the approach to negotiating BITswas still haphazard and piecemeal.Notwithstanding a few very learnedofficials within the bureaucracy,there is not a shared understandingin Pakistan that negotiating BITsrequires a lot of effort and—perhapsmost importantly—legal expertise.Pakistan has therefore continuedto sign BITs without seriouslyconsidering the implications. This isparticularly troubling as Pakistan isnot able to fulfill many of the legalobligations enshrined in BITs, whichmakes us an easy target for expensiveinvestor claims.news: EuropeanproceedingsITN: With this in mind, do you thinkPakistan should stop signing BITs?I am not against BITs as such; I’msimply against the approach Pakistanhas taken in the past, which is topassively sign these treaties, withno real negotiations, or sense of therisks involved. If Pakistan is going toseriously negotiate BITs, it needs toset aside an appropriate budget, sothat the bureaucracy is well staffedand informed on these matters.Unfortunately, the Government ofPakistan has never considered BITs animportant enough issue for this. Butlook at the legal costs in the three casesContinued from page 3against us so far; I’m sure they exceedUS 10 million as a very conservativeestimate. For less than a fraction of thatamount you can set up a department,hire lawyers—perhaps even get someassistance from outside Pakistan—andstart looking at this process properly.But I don’t think the will is therebecause the need is not felt. But come aday where we are faced with a similarsituation as Argentina is now, this maychange.Lauge Skovgaard Poulsen is a PhDcandidate at the London School ofEconomics (email: l.n.poulsen@lse.ac.uk). Damon Vis-Dunbar is Editor ofITN.miners and South Africa suspendBy Damon Vis-DunbarA group of European’s with a stakein South Africa’s granite-quarryingsector and the Government of SouthAfrica have agreed to suspendarbitration proceedings* for twomonths.The claimants—several Italians anda Luxembourg corporation—allegethat their interests in granitequarrying companies were indirectlyexpropriated with the introductionin 2004 of the Mineral and PetroleumResources Development Act (MPRDA).The MPRDA forms part of SouthAfrica’s efforts to increaseparticipation by historicallydisadvantaged South Africans in themining industry.The claimants argue that their mineralrights have been “extinguished” underthe MPRDA, only to be replaced withrights of lesser value when changed tomining licenses under the new regime.Notably, the quarrying companiesindirectly owned by the claimantshave lodged their so-called old-ordermineral rights for ‘conversion’ to neworder rights. The MPRDA requireslodgement by 1 May 2009. (The actual‘conversion’, however, may take longer.Until the new order rights are issued,the rights holder continues to mineunder the terms of the old-orderrights.)In an interview with ITN, co-counselfor the claimants, Peter Leon of the lawfirm Webber Wentzel, stressed that theprocess of ‘converting’ their mineralrights under the MPRDA was unrelatedto their decision to request a stay inthe proceedings. Rather, Leon saidhigh-level negotiations between SouthAfrican officials and the claimants havebeen in process for several months,and the parties felt that a stay in theproceedings would be advantageous inreaching a settlement.4However, in a statement, theGovernment of South Africa said ithas “consistently maintained that theMPRDA conversion mechanism amplyprotects security of tenure of mining/prospecting rights and complies withSouth Africa’s commitments underinternational law.”Counsel for South Africa said thatSouth Africa firmly believes that theClaimants’ case has no merits.“Whatever new order rights theClaimants’ South African companiesmay obtain, and the terms andconditions of such rights, will bedetermined in accordance with theMPRDA and the Mining Charter.The companies will receive thesame substantive treatment as anyold order rights holder in a similarposition,” said Jonathan Gass, a seniorassociate with the law firm FreshfieldsBruckhaus Deringer.
April 2009Argentina ordered to place US 75 million inescrow pending annulment decision on Sempraawardnews:By Fernando Cabrera DiazAn ad-hoc committee formedunder the rules of the InternationalCentre for Settlement of InvestmentDisputes (ICSID) has orderedArgentina to put up US 75 million inescrow as a condition of a continuedstay in the enforcement of an award.Under ICSID rules a party seekingthe annulment of an ICSID award canrequest a stay in the enforcement ofthe award pending the decision onthe annulment. Once the request fora stay is made, a provisional stay isautomatically granted and valid untilthe Annulment Committee decideson the issue.In this case San Diego, Californiabased Sempra Energy Internationalrequested that the AnnulmentCommittee suspend the provisionalstay of enforcement of a US 128million award, alleging thatArgentina’s actions demonstratedit was not willing the pay the awardshould the committee reject theannulment request.Sempra pointed to Argentina’srepeated assertions that awardcreditors must submit awards forenforcement to Argentina’s domesticjudicial system as proof of thecountry’s unwillingness to comply.While Argentina does not disputethe binding nature of ICSID awards,it maintains that award creditorsmust formally seek compliance ofawards though domestic courts. Insupport of this view, Argentina sitesArticle 54 of the ICSID Convention,which states that contracting partiesmust “recognize an award renderedpursuant to this Convention asbinding and enforce the pecuniaryobligations imposed by that awardwithin its territories as if it werea final judgment of a court in thatState.” Argentina interprets thisarticle as requiring it to treat ICSIDawards as it would treat domesticawards, which must be enforced bydomestic courts.Argentina also contends that placingmillions in escrow would cause iteconomic hardship. “In the face ofthe current international financialuncertainty, a requirement to freezesuch amount of money would beparticularly detrimental to anyState and, especially, to an emergingcountry such as Argentina,” wrotethe Argentine government to theCommittee.While Argentina does notdispute the binding natureof ICSID awards, it maintainsthat award creditors mustformally seek complianceof awards though domesticcourts.In a 5 March decision, the Committeerejected Argentina’s argumentsand held that, under the ICSIDConvention, ICSID awards areunconditionally enforceable.In reaching this decision, theCommittee relied on Article 53(1) ofthe ICSID Convention which statesthat awards “shall be binding on theparties and shall not be subject toany appeal or to any other remedyexcept those provided for in thisConvention.”5Argentina’s affirmation thatcreditors must submit awards todomestic courts, demonstratesits unwillingness to comply withits obligations under Article 53,continued the Committee.As a result, the Committeeconcluded that in order tocontinue the stay of enforcement,“Argentina must be required togive some tangible demonstrationof its preparedness to comply,unconditionally and in good faith,with its obligations under Article53 of the Convention.” It thereforeordered the country to place US 75million in escrow within 120 daysof the 5 March 2008 ruling.The decision demonstratesmounting pressure on Argentinato comply, unconditionally, withICSID awards. In recent months,two annulment committees* havedemanded so-called comfort lettersfrom Argentina: written assurancesthat it will comply with ICSIDawards in the case that annulmentis rejected, without requiring ajudicial review by domestic courts.In both cases, Argentina has missedits deadlines for supplying theseletters to the committees.In taking a stronger position, theAnnulment Committee in theSempra case has concluded that“comfort letters” are inadequate fortwo reasons: Argentina has failed toprovide these letters in other cases;and the letters are unnecessary,given that they would simply“confirm and restate Argentina’sobligations under the ICSIDConvention.”
April 2009Deutsche Bank targets Sri Lanka with a BITclaim Connected to a hedging contractBy Damon Vis-DunbarNEWS:A dispute related to oil derivativesentered into by Sri Lanka’s state-runpetroleum utility has led at leastone foreign bank to file arbitrationproceedings against the Government ofSri Lanka.The state-run Ceylon PetroleumCorporation (CPC) entered intohedging contracts with a number offoreign and local banks in 2007 toprotect against a surge in oil prices.While the contracts were originallyprofitable for CPC, they led to heavylosses when oil prices fell steeply inthe fall of 2008. The heads of CPC andthe banks involved have come undercriticism by politicians, citizens and thenews media in Sri Lanka.According to reports in the Sri Lankanpress, several citizens have submittedNews: Southpetitions to the Supreme Courtalleging corruption played a part in thecontracts, leading the court to orderCPC to temporarily suspend paymentsunder the contracts.Lanka in relation to the hedgingcontracts, registered with theInternational Centre for Settlementof Investment Disputes (ICSID) on 24March 2009.Media reports also quote governmentofficials as saying that the Governmentof Sri Lanka and the banks have beenengaged in talks on re-negotiating thehedging contracts.Citibank is also rumored to haveturned to arbitration in order toenforce the hedging contracts. Anofficial with the bank said he couldnot comment, because a case relatedto the contracts is pending in the SriLankan Supreme Court.While the Supreme Court order waslifted in January 2009, The Sri LankanCentral Bank has also stepped in,ordering CPC to suspend the hedgingtransactions, on the grounds thatthey were “materially affected andsubstantially tainted.”Deutsche Bank has filed an arbitrationclaim against the government of SriIn its claim, Deutsche Bank arguesthat the government of Sri Lankahas violated the German-Sri Lankabilateral investment treaty. DeutscheBank has declined to comment on thecase.African court judgment bolstersexpropriation charge over Black EconomicEmpowerment legislation in the mining sectorBy Damon Vis-DunbarA South African judicial ruling hasopened the door for two plaintiffsto seek compensation for allegedexpropriation of their mineral rights, ina case that echoes the complaints madeby European investors in a pendinginternational arbitration against SouthAfrica under bilateral investmenttreaties.The judgment* comes in response toclaims lodged with the Pretoria HighCourt, in which the plaintiffs (AgriS.A. and AM van Rooyen) argue thattheir rights to coal and clay wereexpropriated without compensationin 2004 under the Minerals andPetroleum Resources Development Act(MPRD).The MPRD Act is intended to boostthe black population’s participationin the mining sector, and forms partof a wider effort by the South Africangovernment to address the country’sracial inequalities rooted in a legacy ofapartheid.Under the Act, private ownershipof mineral rights was replaced witha system of licenses offered by thegovernment. Companies who heldmineral rights under the old regimewere given an opportunity to apply forlicenses under new regime; however,mining companies complain thatso-called new order rights are notequivalent in value to the rights theyenjoyed previously.The Ministry of Minerals and Energysought to dismiss the lawsuits by AgriS.A. and AM van Rooyen on the groundthat they fail to provide sufficient factsto support their claims.In 6 March 2009 ruling, however, theHigh Court has rejected the Ministry’s6charge that the plaintiffs’ claims are“vague”, allowing the claims to proceedto the merits stage.In coming to a decision, the High Courtcompared mineral rights held by theplaintiffs prior to 2004 with the rightsoffered under the new regime. TheCourt concludes that mineral rightswere “extinguished” under the Act, andthat the transitional arrangements did“no more than afford an opportunityto the holders of affected rights tomitigate their damages.”“In short it is my interpretation ofthe Act that it admits that holderswill be deprived of their rights andthat such deprivation coupled withthe State’s assumption of custodyand administration of those rightsconstitute expropriation thereof,”writes Judge Willie Hartzenberg.Continued on page 7
April 2009The judge also dismissed the Ministry’sargument that the plaintiffs failed toexhaust administrative remedies priorlaunching their complaint with theHigh Court.In a written response, a spokespersonfor the Ministry of Minerals and Energysaid the judgment was a “setback”,but stressed that the case was “at apreliminary stage.”The ruling is an interim applicationjudgment; a subsequent judgment onthe merits is set to follow separately.Should the High Court side with theplaintiffs in its judgment on the merits,the Ministry of Minerals and Energysays it can appeal to South Africa’sConstitutional Court.Agri S.A., an organization representingagribusiness in South Africa, is seekingR750 000 (approx. US 77 800) indamages from the South AfricanGovernment. The second plaintiff,AM van Rooyen, is seeking R600 000(approx. US 62 350).The dispute playing itself out inPretoria’s High Court has parallels witharbitral proceedings pending at theInternational Centre for Settlementof Investment Disputes (ICSID). (Foran update on this dispute, see the“European miners and South Africasuspend proceedings”, featured in thisissue).In this case, a group of Europeaninvestors in South Africa’s miningsector are suing South Africa foralleged breaches of the Italy-SouthAfrica and Benelux-South Africabilateral investment treaties, on thegrounds that their investment inmineral rights was expropriated underthe MPRD Act (Piero Foresti, LauraDe Carli and others v. the Republic ofSouth Africa).Matthew Coleman, a Partner at Steptoe& Johnson, who has written aboutthe Piero Foresti claim against SouthAfrica, said the decision “will nodoubt, in South African Governmentcircles, give pause for thought as it isa decision of a South African Courtthat is consistent with the argumentsthat have been made by investors bothdomestically and internationally as tothe expropriatory effect of the MPRDA.“Of course, the position of the effectof the MPRDA when it comes toclaims under public international lawis not straightforward—part of theMPRDA’s object is to redress wrongsthat occurred under the apartheidsystem. Whether or not such matterscan be a valid defence under publicinternational law is of great interestand one may assume will be touchedupon by the tribunal in the case beforethe ICSID Additional Facility.”South African court judgment.The suspension of the proceedings atthe International Centre for Settlementof Investment Disputes (ICSID) cameinto effect on 28 March 2009 and runsuntil 28 May 2009.On 27 March 2009, South Africasubmitted a counter-memorial andobjections to jurisdiction to thetribunal. The claimants submitted theirmemorial in July 2008. Hearings arecurrently scheduled for April 2010.The dispute has drawn attention forits human rights implications, andContinued from page 6civil society groups in South Africahave considered making amicus curiae(friend of the court) applications. AsITN reported in October, the ICSIDSecretariat has prepared a two-pagebrief outlining the steps and criteriarequired of potential amici.So far, however, there have not beenany requests to make amicus curiaeapplications.*Piero Foresti, Laura de Carli andothers v. Republic of South Africa(ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/1)7Recently published:The Effect of Treatieson Foreign DirectInvestment: BilateralInvestment Treaties,Double TaxationTreaties and InvestmentFlowsThe Effect of Treaties on Foreign DirectInvestment: Bilateral InvestmentTreaties, Double Taxation Treaties andInvestment Flows (Oxford UniversityPress, 2009), edited by Karl P. Sauvantand Lisa E. Sachs.In recent years, the treaties andstrategies promoting foreign directinvestment (FDI) have changeddramatically. In particular, countrieshave liberalized their FDI laws andhave entered into bilateral investmenttreaties (BITs) and double taxationtreaties (DTTs) to attract suchinvestment. The basic purpose of thesetreaties is to signal to investors thatinvestments will be legally protectedunder international law in case ofpolitical turmoil and to mitigate thepossibility of double taxation of foreignentities. But the actual effect of BITsand DTTs on the flows of foreign directinvestment has been debated. The Effectof Treaties on Foreign Direct Investmentis a comprehensive assessment of theperformance of these treaties in thisrespect, and presents the most recentliterature on BITs and DTTs and theirimpact on foreign investment flows.The Table of Contents and theIntroduction are both available on thepublication page of the Vale ColumbiaCenter on Sustainable InternationalInvestment website:Disclaimer:The views expressed in Investment Treaty Newsare factual and analytical in nature; Apart fromclearly identified IISD Perspectives or Viewpoints, ITN articles do not necessarily reflect theviews of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, its partners, or its funders.Nor does the service purpo
dispute conducted before an ICSID tribunal. Initiated in 2005, the ICSID claim was one of a host of legal avenues pursued by Jack J. Grynberg, the president and CEO of RSM Production Corporation, in an effort gain an exploration license for oil and gas reserves that may lie off the coast of Grenada. RSM's claim was pursuant to an ICSID
WTI Part No. 14023 Rev. O TSM Series Serial Console Servers RSM Series Remote Site Managers RSM-xRy Series Remote Site Managers with Power Control Products Covered: TSM Series RSM Series RSM-xRy Series TSM-40 Models RSM-16 Models RSM-16R16 Models TSM-24 Models RSM-8 Models RSM-8R8 Models TSM-8 Models RSM-2R4 Models User's Guide
NEWS: ICSID tribunal affirms power to exclude counsel, but declines to do so PAGE 7 NEWS: TWC Group settles with the Dominican Republic PAGE 9 . "ICSID tribunal dismisses RSM Production Corporation's claim against Grenada," By Damon Vis-Dunbar, Investment Treaty News, 26
RSM Ireland Business Advisory Limited is a member of the RSM network and trades as RSM Ireland. RSM is the trading name used by the members of the RSM network. Each member of the RSM network is an independent accounting and consulting firm which practices in its own right. The RSM network is not itself a separate legal entity in any jurisdiction.
Socio certificado en el área fiscal por el IMCP Socio de Impuestos de RSM México Bogarín, S.C. Líder del comité fiscal de RSM México Integrante del comité fiscal de RSM Latinoamérica . Ley Federal del Trabajo 3. Ley del IMSS 4. Ley del INFONAVIT 5. Código Fiscal de la Federación 6. Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta 7. Ley del Impuesto .
On 17 January 2022, Suvo announced that it has adopted an Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) framework . RSM is the trading name used by the members of the RSM network. Each member of the RSM network is an independent accounting and consulting firm which practices in its own right. The RSM network is not itself a separate legal entity .
Hindi News NDTV India 317 Hindi News TV9 Bharatvarsh 320 Hindi News News Nation 321 Hindi News INDIA NEWS NEW 322 Hindi News R Bharat 323. Hindi News News World India 324 Hindi News News 24 325 Hindi News Surya Samachar 328 Hindi News Sahara Samay 330 Hindi News Sahara Samay Rajasthan 332 . Nor
HULLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED (CYPRUS) - and - THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION FINAL AWARD 18 July 2014 Tribunal The Hon. L. Yves Fortier PC CC OQ QC, Chairman Dr. Charles Poncet Judge Stephen M. Schwebel Mr. Martin J. Valasek, Assistant to the Tribunal Mr. Brooks W. Daly, Secretary to the Tribunal Ms. Judith Levine, Assistant Secretary to the Tribunal
Biographies (as at 29 October 2019) Dr Catherine Calderwood, Chief Medical Officer for Scotland, Scottish Government Catherine Calderwood has been the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland since 2015. Catherine qualified from Cambridge and Glasgow Universities and continues to work as an obstetrician at a regular antenatal clinic at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. As a junior doctor she worked .
