C
ChrisU
Guest
What annoys me about AVZ’s style is circumlocution: “Only a properly constituted arbitral tribunal”My reading of the latest update:
ICC update
AVZ have made a jurisdictional challenge for the arbitration matter, related to whether the pre-emption rights were breached. A jurisdictional challenge is when a Respondent makes a submission challenging the adjudicator's jurisdiction to determine a dispute. ICC ruled in favour of AVZI to hear and determine the challenge.
The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce18 (“ICC) is among those institutions that have empowered their respective boards or courts of arbitration to decide an objection to their jurisdiction, and thus to dismiss a case if they conclude that the institute has no jurisdiction over the dispute.
So a decision has not been made here yet. ICC could either dismiss the case if they do not believe they have jurisdiction or continue on with arbitration proceedings.
DRC tribunal decision
There has been a request by Dathomir for suspension of payments which have already been made.
Both Dathomir share purchase agreements (SPAs) are subject to arbitration agreements. My interpretation of this is that you can't just get any random run of the mill tribunal to hear arbitration matters in relation to these agreements as they have set requirements written into the agreements. Only a properly constituted arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to overturn AVZI's acquisition. No such proceedings have commenced and the tribunal decision does not purport to have any effect on the SPAs. The tribunal decision mentioned did not happen within a properly constituted arbitral tribunal. Therefore it does not have jurisdiction. This is set out in the SPA.
AVZ considers 20 September decision immaterial. I would agree. They can suspend and hold the funds in whatever holding account they want, it does not change the fact that the transaction has occurred.
I could sell a car and receive the funds in one of my accounts by transfer. I could then give the car to the buyer then tell the bank not to transfer the funds to my main savings account...ok, so what? That doesn't mean I can get the car back.
What is “a properly constituted arbitral tribunal”?
Spell it out.
We need to understand why AVZ emphasises “tribunal”, whereas Tom Richardson used “court”.
AVZ says nothing on the or any authority of the tribunal.
Richardson is up to his semantic tricks. He did the same thing in his May article