Will be good to take notes whilst they go through it - cannot get close to the mill than this without being in attendance
Day 1 (02 April 2012) RUR vs. Bolivian Government - please note the negotiation / justification of claim at the start discussing investment and justification of claim. Also discussion about the issues including 'group consultation. Also laying out the process and agreeing on expert witnesses. Article 49 - Wanting a discount rate of the claim for lump sum payment and also justification about the 12% discount of claim. Also "importance" of the independent assessment of the valuation, whereby Bolivia wants the documentation to remain confidential, assuming it's not in their favour. IRR (Investment Rate of Return),
Document R44 Expropriation Insurance Policy: There has been no insurance policy, as Bolivia tried to utilise this (our view) to avoid paying sum.
Wow, they're actually stating that RUR shouldn't have invested because they knew it was a bad country (will double check this). Should the Claimant be entitled to the IRR that has been outlined. Liquid Capital Countribution and Debt: They want to know the ratio equity ratio allowing for Debt...Fairly standard housekeeping.......they're arguing why they should pay a capitalist valuation Articles 4,5,7,8 no mention of the Clause 8: Solution of debt to be resolved within 6 months which Bolivia has not completed. They're arguing the difference between energy capacity and actually demand: interest concept!
Rate of Return (Internal) and Discounted Rate of Return 25-30% would have been likely. Stating they would not have invested if the IRR wasn't 25-30%. Up to 23mins 30 seconds
Day 2 (03 April 2012) RUR vs. Bolivian Government
Day 3 (04 April 2012) RUR vs. Bolivian Government
Day 4 (05 April 2012) RUR vs. Bolivian Government
Day 5 (08 April 2012) RUR vs. Bolivian Government
Most important understanding of the case with closing arguments and review
.Day 6 (09 April 2012) RUR vs. Bolivian Government Very hard to scroll through the recording but try and get around 7 mins 35 Seconds for final pleas. "In the course of the week Bolivia's case has evaporated...." Bolivia's defence is based on the value of the company/assets being Zero (yeap they believe it was zero) so why did they nationalised it? Especially if it was worthless? No input allowed from the claimant and purely was a strategic document to utilise to settle the claim. Totally impartially (NOT) confidential document that should not be revealed. Basically a secret report (For Bolivian Government) to help them in negotiations and 'claims' a value of ZERO. Bolivia abandoned their own report of the valuation of zero (couldn't make it up). Fair market value compensation, "the standard for measurement is the 'willingness of the buyer'. Most elements are irrelevant to and immaterial to the case, the liquidity issues (cashflow) are clearly showing a valuation C224 (Accounts), profits were $12.6M Dollars in 2011. Claimants provided witness of facts rather than opinion; mainly RUR associated parties.
Scroll forward to 4hr 14mins with various suggestions of misrepresentation of final claims and incorrect projections. (Bolivian Government Counsel) They're suggesting that the 'demand' is immaterial and then wished (wanted) to cross examine the witnesses 'after' their opportunity.
Carbon credits are now $50 a tonne, previously $14 a tonne. Seems Bolivia have put forward a case that's more one to blur the issues rather than acknowledge the pertinent issues and resolution.
Sounding like a claim of $110M-$142M settlement...??!?
Just a note from my perspective and having spoken with Fraser, it's noted there was some 'suggestion' that defence Counsel had changed because of a conflict of interest on the boards. Our view is that person was just making statements or trying to manipulate the process or information for their own benefit or at the very least had the information totally wrong. This is a lesson about BB commentary...
Day 1 (02 April 2012) RUR vs. Bolivian Government - please note the negotiation / justification of claim at the start discussing investment and justification of claim. Also discussion about the issues including 'group consultation. Also laying out the process and agreeing on expert witnesses. Article 49 - Wanting a discount rate of the claim for lump sum payment and also justification about the 12% discount of claim. Also "importance" of the independent assessment of the valuation, whereby Bolivia wants the documentation to remain confidential, assuming it's not in their favour. IRR (Investment Rate of Return),
Document R44 Expropriation Insurance Policy: There has been no insurance policy, as Bolivia tried to utilise this (our view) to avoid paying sum.
Wow, they're actually stating that RUR shouldn't have invested because they knew it was a bad country (will double check this). Should the Claimant be entitled to the IRR that has been outlined. Liquid Capital Countribution and Debt: They want to know the ratio equity ratio allowing for Debt...Fairly standard housekeeping.......they're arguing why they should pay a capitalist valuation Articles 4,5,7,8 no mention of the Clause 8: Solution of debt to be resolved within 6 months which Bolivia has not completed. They're arguing the difference between energy capacity and actually demand: interest concept!
Rate of Return (Internal) and Discounted Rate of Return 25-30% would have been likely. Stating they would not have invested if the IRR wasn't 25-30%. Up to 23mins 30 seconds
Day 2 (03 April 2012) RUR vs. Bolivian Government
Day 3 (04 April 2012) RUR vs. Bolivian Government
Day 4 (05 April 2012) RUR vs. Bolivian Government
Day 5 (08 April 2012) RUR vs. Bolivian Government
Most important understanding of the case with closing arguments and review
.Day 6 (09 April 2012) RUR vs. Bolivian Government Very hard to scroll through the recording but try and get around 7 mins 35 Seconds for final pleas. "In the course of the week Bolivia's case has evaporated...." Bolivia's defence is based on the value of the company/assets being Zero (yeap they believe it was zero) so why did they nationalised it? Especially if it was worthless? No input allowed from the claimant and purely was a strategic document to utilise to settle the claim. Totally impartially (NOT) confidential document that should not be revealed. Basically a secret report (For Bolivian Government) to help them in negotiations and 'claims' a value of ZERO. Bolivia abandoned their own report of the valuation of zero (couldn't make it up). Fair market value compensation, "the standard for measurement is the 'willingness of the buyer'. Most elements are irrelevant to and immaterial to the case, the liquidity issues (cashflow) are clearly showing a valuation C224 (Accounts), profits were $12.6M Dollars in 2011. Claimants provided witness of facts rather than opinion; mainly RUR associated parties.
Scroll forward to 4hr 14mins with various suggestions of misrepresentation of final claims and incorrect projections. (Bolivian Government Counsel) They're suggesting that the 'demand' is immaterial and then wished (wanted) to cross examine the witnesses 'after' their opportunity.
Carbon credits are now $50 a tonne, previously $14 a tonne. Seems Bolivia have put forward a case that's more one to blur the issues rather than acknowledge the pertinent issues and resolution.
Bolivia Government forecasts black outs but in 2018 so should disregard certain forward looking statements, hilarious! So in essence, don't invest in Bolivia, everything is worthless? Even Bolivia have admitted that Guarachi was viable, but suggest turbines are worth nil??
Sounding like a claim of $110M-$142M settlement...??!?
Just a note from my perspective and having spoken with Fraser, it's noted there was some 'suggestion' that defence Counsel had changed because of a conflict of interest on the boards. Our view is that person was just making statements or trying to manipulate the process or information for their own benefit or at the very least had the information totally wrong. This is a lesson about BB commentary...
No comments:
Post a Comment