MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
US Supreme Court hears 2002 case of BG Group against Argentina
British Gas is demanding 185 million dollars because the gas prices freeze wiped off values of its companies in Argentina The US Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday in the case of a British company embroiled in a legal battle with Argentina, with justices mulling the question of whether an arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction to punish a sovereign state in favor of a private company.
British oil and gas giant BG Group sued Argentina for economic losses incurred after the government in Buenos Aires unilaterally froze gas prices following the country's devastating 2001-2002 economic crisis.
BG argued the decision to freeze prices violated a 1993 bilateral treaty between Britain and Argentina, and wiped millions off the values of a 55% stake it owned in Argentina's national gas provider and a 45% interest in Metro Gas.
BG said the Argentine government's decision had effectively robbed the company of their investment and successfully sued, being awarded 185 million in December 2007 following a four-year arbitration case at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
Argentina successfully challenged the award however, with an appeals court in Washington later ruling that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide the facts subject to arbitration.
At Monday's hearing, counsel representing Argentina, Jonathan Blackman, argued that the dispute should be resolved in Argentine courts.
In past rulings, the US Supreme Court has tended to favor arbitration. A ruling is due by the end of June.
The Supreme Court could yet hear another case related to the Argentina default. Argentina is expected to appeal a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that requires the country to pay 1.33 billion to bondholders who refused to participate in two debt restructurings following the default.
The case argued on Monday is BG Group v. Argentina, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-138.
Top Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules-
-
Read all commentsThoughts. “BG argued the decision to freeze prices violated a 1993 bilateral treaty between Britain and Argentina”. Nothing new there. Argieland ALWAYS violates treaties, agreements and contracts. Is there any argie coon that can provide a list of treaties, agreements or agreements with which argieland has fully complied?
Dec 04th, 2013 - 01:56 pm 0“At Monday's hearing, counsel representing Argentina, Jonathan Blackman, argued that the dispute should be resolved in Argentine courts.” Argieland doesn't have any “courts”. What happens is that plaintiff files a case. Relevant argie government “ministry” considers the case and decides whether current “legislation” is adequate for the case to fail. If not, new retrospective legislation is urgently drafted and “decreed” by the chief crook. Problem “solved”. Not forgetting the “bent” judges.
“The Supreme Court could yet hear another case related to the Argentina default. Argentina is expected to appeal a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that requires the country to pay 1.33 billion to bondholders who refused to participate in two debt restructurings following the default.” We know, don't we? Have we actually managed to figure why argieland thinks it shouldn't pay bondholders who declined to be ripped off? Isn't there some way that the US Supreme Court can be made aware that the majority of the world wants to see argieland made to pay? In the great scheme of things, a “sovereign” country should adhere to the highest possible standards of probity. A country that doesn't adhere to that should lose its “sovereignty”. It doesn't deserve it. Germany was sovereign until 1933. Then it became criminal. Can the US Supreme Court not recognise that argieland has been criminal since 2003 and should be treated accordingly? Don't get bogged down in abstruse legal pros and cons. Argieland is GUILTY. No matter what. Just figure out enforceable, painful judgements.
I thought Argentina was supposed to take energy firms to court for drilling round the Falklands, (i.e. for performing a legal act), so we keep hearing from these grandiose announcements and press releases.
Dec 04th, 2013 - 10:06 pm 0It seems instead, energy firms are taking Argentina to court without first announcing it in the world press.
I haven't heard one oil executive that has been a victim of Argentine 'Law' yet.
But, this is not the first time Argentina has been taken to court.
Is this a modern version of the boy (lady) who cried Wolf?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!