Hope everyone had a good weekend! I had a few friends visit in London to christen my new pad! It certainly was christened, today I'm suffering the cobweb effects of Alcohol to excess.
So what's happening in the world of International Arbitration for AIM today: http://www.investegate.co.uk/rurelec-plc--rur-/rns/transcripts-of-the-final-hearing-against-bolivia/201304150700103134C/
Now, I've reliably worked out that the payment should be in full...however what I work out and the reality may be very different. The Carbon Emissions Credits may not stand the test in Court but were worth claiming, because it was a secondary business and will depend on whether Bolivia were claiming them...
Now there's a lot of misconceptions for Rurelec's claim, arising mainly because people don't actually understand the process. When at panel/court, there has not been one case where the assets (unless saleable/moveable such as capital Equipment) have been returned to the Claimant (Rurelec) by the Respondent (Bolivian Government). Now what concerns me is, people are inferring this may happen...perhaps even is more likely. They have a belief that RUR in this case is suing for their assets back...that option expired by the time they got to court, so not it's a straight financial settlement. Well you could argue it expired when Bolivia did what they did...showing a clear illegal act in BIT terms.
I spent sometime going through the board commentary with a friend, some may have read his BB years back before idiots started reading, FJP73/Fraser. The chaps unfortunately known me 31 years this September. Fraser, he now works for a small company that use his derivatives expertise in the mining sector. He may comment from time to time in my name, having been attending and studying International Arbitration claims in detail since before Rurelec and attends most conferences on it...enough of blowing smoke up him!
What would be interesting for Churchill holders is to review the documentation and issues that RUR have. Remembering that there's a difference in claim between CHL/RUR. Now remember, there's a risk CHL have their license returned at this stage, unlike RUR, whose chances of having their assets returned are 'near to nil' as the faith and confidence in the country has been eroded by the Bolivian Governments actions (please note the Terminology).
Now when looking at the similarities, there's a stark difference that CHL attempted to utilise the local law process to have the assets returned to them. So there's an argument they have a weaker case, however, my view is that it strengthens their claim as they tried to resolve the matter utilising the Native process available which further compounds their claim/the fraud or alleged wrong-doings.
Once the jurisdictional issues have been resolved, then CHL's claim becomes 'safer' there are a few issues at hand or should I say risks. That no investor has been able to review the licenses directly, however I'm sure CHL's legal team have and would have advised no further action if CHL couldn't prove entitlement to licenses etc...
So I'm taking the CHL evidence in good faith, knowing/believing they have excellent legal representation and if it can be shown they have a claim to the licenses then they'll win. It's as simple as that...likewise Indonesia protesting too much I have to take as a sign of...ermmmm...guilt (perhaps?).
When people have had time to review RUR's claim and positives negatives, I'll cover more on it...
No comments:
Post a Comment