Saturday, March 12, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Ecuador Court Fines Chevron $8.6 Billion
Ecuador Court Fines Chevron $8.6 Billion | Kluwer Arbitration Blog On February 15th,2011
Today an Ecuador court fined Chevron $8.6 billion for environmental damage. According to the Wall Street Journal, $5.4 billion of that is to restore polluted soil, $1.4 billion to create a health system for the community, $800 million to treat individuals injured by the pollution, $600 million to restore polluted waters, $200 million to restore native species, $150 million to transport water, and $100 million to create a community cultural reconstruction program. The judgment in Spanish is available here. (English translation forthcoming)
Chevron responded to the judgment with the following statement:
The Ecuadorian court’s judgment is illegitimate and unenforceable. It is the product of fraud and is contrary to the legitimate scientific evidence. Chevron will appeal this decision in Ecuador and intends to see that justice prevails. United States and international tribunals already have taken steps to bar enforcement of the Ecuadorian ruling. Chevron does not believe that today’s judgment is enforceable in any court that observes the rule of law. Chevron intends to see that the perpetrators of this fraud are held accountable for their misconduct.
Amazon Watch responded with its own statement:
Today an Ecuador court fined Chevron $8.6 billion for environmental damage. According to the Wall Street Journal, $5.4 billion of that is to restore polluted soil, $1.4 billion to create a health system for the community, $800 million to treat individuals injured by the pollution, $600 million to restore polluted waters, $200 million to restore native species, $150 million to transport water, and $100 million to create a community cultural reconstruction program. The judgment in Spanish is available here. (English translation forthcoming)
Chevron responded to the judgment with the following statement:
The Ecuadorian court’s judgment is illegitimate and unenforceable. It is the product of fraud and is contrary to the legitimate scientific evidence. Chevron will appeal this decision in Ecuador and intends to see that justice prevails. United States and international tribunals already have taken steps to bar enforcement of the Ecuadorian ruling. Chevron does not believe that today’s judgment is enforceable in any court that observes the rule of law. Chevron intends to see that the perpetrators of this fraud are held accountable for their misconduct.
Amazon Watch responded with its own statement:
Reaching A Settlement Before the Arbitration Hearing
Reaching A Settlement Before the Arbitration Hearing | Kluwer Arbitration Blog
Reaching A Settlement Before the Arbitration Hearing
By Darius Chan
Will a court injunct arbitral proceedings if parties, before an arbitration hearing, allegedly reach a settlement agreement and a dispute subsequently arises over the existence of such an agreement? Is the tribunal functus?
Recently, the Singapore High Court in Doshion Ltd v Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd [2011] SGHC 46 (“Doshion”) rightly held that no injunction would lie in such an instance. It is a decision to be welcomed.
In that case, the two parties were parties to arbitration proceedings under certain construction contracts (“the Sub-Contracts”). The arbitration was scheduled to start on 28 February 2011. The claimant contended that an oral settlement was reached between the solicitors for the parties on 15 February 2011 and the arbitration proceedings should be terminated as of that date. The defendant denied the existence of any settlement.
The defendant characterised the claimant’s argument as one where the tribunal had become functus officio because of the settlement. The defendant cited a recent English High Court decision of Martin Dawes v Treasure & Son Ltd [2010] EWHC 3218 (“Dawes”) and contended that the issue of whether an arbitrator was functus went
Reaching A Settlement Before the Arbitration Hearing
By Darius Chan
Will a court injunct arbitral proceedings if parties, before an arbitration hearing, allegedly reach a settlement agreement and a dispute subsequently arises over the existence of such an agreement? Is the tribunal functus?
Recently, the Singapore High Court in Doshion Ltd v Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd [2011] SGHC 46 (“Doshion”) rightly held that no injunction would lie in such an instance. It is a decision to be welcomed.
In that case, the two parties were parties to arbitration proceedings under certain construction contracts (“the Sub-Contracts”). The arbitration was scheduled to start on 28 February 2011. The claimant contended that an oral settlement was reached between the solicitors for the parties on 15 February 2011 and the arbitration proceedings should be terminated as of that date. The defendant denied the existence of any settlement.
The defendant characterised the claimant’s argument as one where the tribunal had become functus officio because of the settlement. The defendant cited a recent English High Court decision of Martin Dawes v Treasure & Son Ltd [2010] EWHC 3218 (“Dawes”) and contended that the issue of whether an arbitrator was functus went
Monday, March 7, 2011
Morgan Stanley cancels all Libya oil trade
UPDATE 1-Morgan Stanley cancels all Libya oil trade -source | Energy & Oil | Reuters
LONDON, March 7 (Reuters) - Wall Street bank Morgan Stanley has stopped trading oil with Libya, a trade source said on Monday, in an early indication that sanctions could hit exports from the north African producer.
The firm cancelled all crude oil and refined products in the past week "due to the OFAC," the source familiar with the firm's transactions said, referring to the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, which controls trade sanctions.
President Barack Obama signed an executive order on Feb. 25 freezing the assets of Libya's President Muammar Gaddafi, his family and top officials, as well as the Libyan government and the country's central bank.
Traders said Morgan Stanley has regularly sourced oil from the North African country to feed the UK Grangemouth and the French Lavera refineries but did not know how much the bank was buying from Libya.
The bank also traded gasoline with Libya, sources said.
Morgan Stanley declined to comment.
Most estimates suggest around half of the country's 1.6 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil production capacity has been suspended due to clashes between government forces and rebels.
Some trade sources expect other oil companies to follow the bank's lead and halt oil trade with Libya, effectively halting exports to the international market.
LONDON, March 7 (Reuters) - Wall Street bank Morgan Stanley has stopped trading oil with Libya, a trade source said on Monday, in an early indication that sanctions could hit exports from the north African producer.
The firm cancelled all crude oil and refined products in the past week "due to the OFAC," the source familiar with the firm's transactions said, referring to the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, which controls trade sanctions.
President Barack Obama signed an executive order on Feb. 25 freezing the assets of Libya's President Muammar Gaddafi, his family and top officials, as well as the Libyan government and the country's central bank.
Traders said Morgan Stanley has regularly sourced oil from the North African country to feed the UK Grangemouth and the French Lavera refineries but did not know how much the bank was buying from Libya.
The bank also traded gasoline with Libya, sources said.
Morgan Stanley declined to comment.
Most estimates suggest around half of the country's 1.6 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil production capacity has been suspended due to clashes between government forces and rebels.
Some trade sources expect other oil companies to follow the bank's lead and halt oil trade with Libya, effectively halting exports to the international market.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
WTO treatment of a Carbon Tax
Peter Gallagher
In which I try briefly to describe the practical impact of WTO rules on the administration of a compensated carbon tax that is not levied on exports.
The huge volumes of recent commentary on the interaction of WTO rules and carbon emission taxes or administered markets ("emission trading schemes", ETS) contain a bewildering diversity of analysis. The matter is so contentious that the 2010 Copenhagen Accord of the UN Kyoto Protocol omitted any mention of trade measures that might be used to shore up domestic tax/ETS schemes if some large emitters (China, India, Japan) declined to make proportionate (or any) emission cuts.
In the present state of WTO jurisprudence the only thing we can say for sure is that any laws to levy a carbon tax on imports or to remit a domestic carbon tax on exports are likely to provoke nasty trade disputes; which is why the then-EC-Trade-Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, advised against putting any such border taxes on imports or tax-remissions on exports in place when the EU adopted its own ETS in 2005.
In which I try briefly to describe the practical impact of WTO rules on the administration of a compensated carbon tax that is not levied on exports.
The huge volumes of recent commentary on the interaction of WTO rules and carbon emission taxes or administered markets ("emission trading schemes", ETS) contain a bewildering diversity of analysis. The matter is so contentious that the 2010 Copenhagen Accord of the UN Kyoto Protocol omitted any mention of trade measures that might be used to shore up domestic tax/ETS schemes if some large emitters (China, India, Japan) declined to make proportionate (or any) emission cuts.
In the present state of WTO jurisprudence the only thing we can say for sure is that any laws to levy a carbon tax on imports or to remit a domestic carbon tax on exports are likely to provoke nasty trade disputes; which is why the then-EC-Trade-Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, advised against putting any such border taxes on imports or tax-remissions on exports in place when the EU adopted its own ETS in 2005.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)