Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PAW - Pacific Wildcat Resources Corp -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JackieTreehorn who wrote (3359)	3/6/2019 2:46:49 PM
From: Rocket Red	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Respond to of 3412

B.that the tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers In the seven decisions, the parties seeking annulment had argued that the tribunals had made a wide range of annullable errors. These errors included errors arising from the tribunals‘ acceptance of jurisdiction, their findings regarding applicable law and application of that law, their admission and evaluation of evidence, their handing of discovery requests, calculations of damages, and matters relating to arbitrator independence and impartiality. jurisdiction claimants' claims against the Republic of Kenya were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction do some reading or call PAW

To: JackieTreehorn who wrote (3359)	3/6/2019 2:50:24 PM
From: Rocket Red	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3412

The tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers In each of the seven decisions, the applicants argued that the tribunal in question had manifestly exceeded its powers. The excesses alleged involved diverse aspects of the proceedings, including the tribunals‘ assumption of jurisdiction, admission and evaluation of evidence, legal findings, and handling of procedural matters. In the three successful annulment applications—Argentina‘s successful applications in Sempra and Enron, and the investor‘s successful application in Helnan—the committees relied on this ground (at least in part) to annul the awards. Drawing from previous annulment decisions, the seven decisions set forth the same general principles regarding application of Article 52(1)(b). These principles are that a manifest excess of powers will be found where the tribunal lacked jurisdiction or failed to decide a question over which it had jurisdiction, where it disregarded the applicable law, or where it based the award on a law other than the applicable law. The decisions also repeated the refrain that although a failure to apply the applicable law can support annulment, an erroneous interpretation of that law will not. Further, the decisions noted that to be ?manifest,? the tribunals‘ errors had to be evident or apparent on the face of the award without requiring the committee to engage in in-depth reconsideration of the evidence or law before the tribunal.