Sunday, 12 May 2013

Valid Questions about Legal Representation

Via Email; we were asked on the position of Churchill Mining changing Legal Representation. Specifically relating to: Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40) PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 4 Item 5  

5.0 informed the Tribunal in ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 that Churchill Mining would no longer be represented by Hogan Lovells International LLP (“Hogan Lovells”) and that Messrs. Stephen Jagusch, Anthony Sinclair, and Epaminontas Triantafilou of Quinn Emanuel had been designated as its new representatives.

5.3 By letter of letter of January 24, 2013, Quinn Emanuel also informed the Tribunal in ICSID Case No. ARB/12/40 that Planet Mining would no longer be represented by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP (“Freshfields”) and that Messrs. Stephen Jagusch, Anthony Sinclair, and Epaminontas 

It's clear there's been a consolidation of the cases and if people know Quinn Emanuel, like Freshfields, they deal with complex cases. I cannot speculate on costings as I'm not informed on them but have but I'm sure they're similar. You could say risks have increased by the change, however its more than likely a consolidation of claims and costs than anything risky that would require a review. Surely the other representatives wouldn't have advise no suitable claim after assessing and then filing the claims. Notwithstanding, Nicholas Smith has a good understanding of International Arbitration.

Thank you for putting the view point forward Paul; it's not a bad question more that it needs to be considered.

Be informed: 



I'm sure both have significant experience and a change sometimes is better, but likewise from an investment perspective it needs to be considered. 

Fraser

No comments:

Post a Comment