Pacific Wildcat Resources Corp (PWCRF)

[makinezmoney]

$PWCRF: Brazil accounts for 85% of worlds Niobium


Chinese are desperate for Niobium.
Kenya is of key interest to them now.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-election-china-niobium/hands-off-brazils-niobium-bolsonaro-sees-china-as-threat-to-utopian-vision-idUSKCN1MZ1JN



GO $PWCRF

[makinezmoney]

Balala was clearly looking for a lil something for his own.

When he didn’t get what he wanted (a $1Million bribe) he turned.

So then.... who’s fault is it now ?

The one expecting to receive a bribe in order to administer
A mining licence or the one that refuses to oblige to
Give in to it for fear that it is immoral and improper.

President Kenyatta gave the go-ahead without any indication of a bribe.


Don’t tell me that you believe a Corrupt politician like
Balala. Corrupt politicians in Kenya are a dime-a-dozen.... Balala is no saint. He is the perpetrator and abused power of his office for personal gain.

This annulment review certainly favours PWCRF in light of Balala transgressions.

[Rocketred]

CS Balala’s revocation of SML 351 on 5 August 2013 was arbitrary, malicious and
a clear excess of power under the licence, the Mining Act and the Constitution. He
has been conspicuously absent from these proceedings. Even if the Tribunal were
to find SML 351 void ab initio, the arbitration provision in SML 351 is separable
and valid

[Rocketred]

CS Balala why was he not in court ?

This is also Bullshit by the Kenya Government

On the other hand, the Government raises the preliminary point that the Claimants have no
claim because SML 351 was never revoked. It was just “suspended” pending review of the Task
Force. No treaty relief is available in respect of a mere “suspension”, decided in the proper conduct
of Government business.

[JackieTreehorn]

Grounds for annulment?

On what grounds do people here believe this decision could be annulled? It seems (from reading through various articles in the decision) that the claim was denied as PAW lobbied a politician for their license, rather than go through the legal process, which would be a fault of their own doing.

It also seems like annulments are exceedingly rare.

I'm hoping there are other avenues to recover something, but despite the press release, I'm guessing this was a fatal blow.

[makinezmoney]

$PWCRF: Kenya might lose International Investment Interest


This Cortec lawsuit is indicative of it.


https://allafrica.com/stories/201810260607.html


***********************************************


Kenyan Miners Say Law Not Conducive to Investment

By Njiraini Muchira
Kenyan miners have warned that potential investors in the country's mining sector may shelve their investment plans due to provisions of the Mining Act 2016 that they say are not conducive to doing business in the country.

The miners cited the requirement for an investor to obtain consent from the communities occupying the targeted land before being licensed to explore for minerals and extract them.

Kenya Chamber of Mines chief executive Moses Njeru said that the law was seen as an inhibitor for the sector, whose contribution to GDP has remained at less than one per cent.

"The mining sector in Kenya is not attracting investors because of inherent risks and uncertainties brought about by ambiguous clauses in the Mining Act," he said, adding that the failure of the sector to attract exploration activities means that Kenya should not expect any form of mineral discoveries and mining.

Section 38 (1) of the Act prohibits the government from issuing prospecting and mining rights on community land without the direct consent of the community, despite the Act stipulating that every mineral is the property of Kenya and is vested in the national government in trust for the people of Kenya. Miners say it has become nearly impossible for investors to get consent from communities.

Some 129 companies have presented applications for the exploration licence/permit, while another 77 have applied for the dealer's licence/permit.

Mr Njeru said there is a lack of critical seismic data, forcing investors to undertake their own surveys.

He further cited the requirement to compensate landowners, lack of clarity on royalty payments and fiscal regimes.

Currently, only Base Titanium has a strong footing in Kenya, having operated in the country for years mining titanium in Kwale.

East African governments have undertaken wide-ranging reforms of mining laws to ensure they become the primary beneficiaries of mineral resources even as they seek to attract foreign investors.

The sector contributes four per cent to Tanzania's GDP, 1.2 per cent to Rwanda's, one per cent in Kenya and 0.5 per cent in Uganda.

Kenya
Boinnet Dismisses Letter Warning of Imminent Nairobi Terror Attack
Inspector General of Police Joseph Boinnet has dismissed a letter circulating on social media cautioning of an imminent… Read more »

Read the original article on East African.

[makinezmoney]

$PWCRF: Hey ETRF... remove your ASK


You're holding down the RUN here.


You realize this Annulment takes $PWCRF up much higher, right ?


Wait to sell back over $3/sh



GO $PWCRF

[makinezmoney]

$PWCRF: Grabbing cheapies here at $0.01.... 150k worth


Thank you Market people.


Annulment to go in favor of $PWCRF !



GO $PWCRF

[makinezmoney]

$PWCRF: Najib Balala is one Schemy MoFo


I think that is the approach that $PWCRF management needs to bring up
in its Annulment discussions with ICSID... call him out and continue
to insist that Kenyantta had given full authority to Cortec tro proceed
ahead.


Last I checked... Kenyanatta has more Authority over Balala.
Kenyanatta represents the country.
Balala is just a subordinate.


This guy is one slick bullshitter

$PWCRF

[makinezmoney]

$PWCRF: 5reasons for Premise of Annulment of ICSID Awards



https://www.slideserve.com/jackie/annulment-of-icsid-awards



Go $PWCRF

[makinezmoney]

$PWCRF: Annulment Application Process


https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/Background%20Paper%20on%20Annulment%20April%202016%20ENG.pdf

https://www.crowell.com/files/Is-the-ICSID-Annulment-Process-Working-or-is-it-Now-Time-for-an-Appellate-Mechanism.pdf

https://www.biicl.org/files/3862_ruth_mackenzie.ppt





GO $PWCRF

[makinezmoney]

$PWCRF: Case Documents ICSID Case No. ARB/15/29



https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw10051.pdf



GO $PWCRF

[Rocketred]

https://www.stockwatch.com/Old/Fundamentals.aspx?U:PWCRF

[Mr. Bill]

Yes I bought the jacket on eBay and got custom patches made and sewed on LOL

[Mr. Bill]

Agreed - it also some how eliminates ones obligation for signing a legal document when you are entitled to do so. Beyond ridiculous. Furthermore to put the obligation on the customer for what the government bureaucracy fails to do in their review is ridiculous as well. Once a government agent with authority to do so signs a legal document their is an obligation created - WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE DID THEIR JOB OR NOT!!

[ground_fog]

We have a pulse! if annulment what would be the next step?

[Rocketred]

Well really there is some serious issues in that ruling that never addressed the property being taken away in the 1st place

ICSID and the """""""Tribunal lack jurisdiction""""""

so good grounds for annulment

[Rocketred]

The Origin of the Annulment Provision
7. The grounds for annulment in the ICSID Convention derive from the 1953 United Nations
International Law Commission Draft Convention on Arbitral Procedure (“ILC Draft”),
which was an effort to codify existing international law on arbitral procedure in State-toState arbitration.
6
The ILC recognized that the finality of an award is an essential feature
5
For a summary of steps in drafting the Convention, see ICSID, History of the ICSID Convention: Documents
Concerning the Origin and the Formulation of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States
and Nationals of Other States Vol. I-IV (1970) (“History”), Vol. I, 2-10.
6
See Documents of the Fifth Session Including the Report of the Commission to the General Assembly, [1953] 2
Yearbook of the International Law Commission 211, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1953/Add.1 (“1953 ILC
Yearbook II”) (Article 30 of the Draft Convention on Arbitral Procedure); Aron Broches, “Observations on the
3
of arbitral practice, but also recognized that there was a need for “exceptional remedies
calculated to uphold the judicial character of the award as well as the will of the parties as
a source of the jurisdiction of the tribunal.”
7
It thus “sought to reconcile finality of the
award with the need to prevent flagrant cases of excess of jurisdiction and injustice.”
8
During its deliberations, the ILC decided that no appeal against an arbitral award should
be allowed, but that the validity of an award might be challenged “within rigidly fixed
limits.”
9
An independent body, the International Court of Justice, would rule on whether a
challenge should lead to the annulment of the award.
10
8. The provision in the ILC Draft read as follows:
(1) The validity of an award may be challenged by either party on one or more of
the following grounds:
(a) That the tribunal has exceeded its powers;
(b) That there was corruption on the part of a member of the tribunal;
(c) That there has been a serious departure from a fundamental rule of
procedure, including failure to state the reasons for the award.
11
9. During its deliberations, the ILC debated the scope of specific grounds, including whether
an excess of jurisdiction might warrant annulment, while misapplication of the law would
not.
12
Ultimately, the ILC Draft made no attempt to define what conduct each ground
would cover, with the exception of the express reference to the “failure to state the reasons
for the award” as an example of a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure.
13

[Rocketred]

Pacific Wildcat Resources receives ICSID ruling

2018-10-25 12:15 ET - News Release
Shares issued 295,131,981

Mr. Don O'Sullivan reports

PACIFIC WILDCAT ANNOUNCES ICSID ARBITRATION DECISION

Further to its press release dated Oct. 5, 2018, Pacific Wildcat Resources Corp. has received the decision from the tribunal appointed to hear the claim against the Republic of Kenya. Disappointingly, the tribunal's decision was not in favour of Pacific Wildcat Resources.

Pacific Wildcat Resources is considering grounds for a possible annulment application. The company will keep shareholders updated on any progress regarding this decision.

[makinezmoney]

$PWCRF: Are you serious... Thats Helluva Jacket


Did you actually get that made ?

Awesome job !


FYI.... story is not dead here. $PWCRF turns a new chapter.



GO $PWCRF

[Rocketred]

Yup to bad no appeal as Wildcat is now toast they spent 70 mil in exploration and got SWEET F all back from finding a 100 billion deposit

Crooks everywhere in this world

[Mr. Bill]

184. Mr. Juma is dead and cannot defend himself. Mr. Masibo provided a detailed witness statement which denied any wrongdoing. The Government did not put to Mr. Masibo while in the
witness box the so-called “incriminating” evidence. Fairness required, if the Government wished

188 David Anderson First Witness Statement, para. 115. 189 Tr. Day 6, p. 15, ll. 3-6. 190 Hari Kinosthe Ndung’u First Witness Statement, para. 27. See also Respondent’s Counter-Memorial on the Merits and Memorial on Objections to Jurisdiction dated 5 October 2016, para 16. 191 Harie Kinosthe Ndung’u First Witness Statement, para. 27.


68

to pursue its allegations of corruption, that Mr. Masibo be given the opportunity to explain his
conduct. This opportunity was not given. The Tribunal does not accept the Government’s
explanation that it did not wish by cross-examination to further complicate Mr. Masibo’s existing legal jeopardy in Kenya.192 Mr. Masibo’s lawyer, not the Government, was present to protect Mr.
Masibo. Nevertheless, the Government seeks to persuade the Tribunal to draw the conclusion that
“this arrangement involved corruption. On that basis alone, the Government says, the claim should
be dismissed, as investment treaty protection does not extend to investments procured by corruption and/or made in bad faith.”193
185. The Tribunal rejects the allegations of corruption against Mr. Masibo as unproven.

[Mr. Bill]

Seems to me if a bureaucracy makes a mistake it is theirs's to own -

It seems to me to be the governmental issuing entity's responsibility to determine compliance - not the customer's duty

THIS IS THE PART OF THE ICSID DECISION THAT MAKES NO COMMON SENSE TO ME-

163. Mr. O’Sullivan and Mr. Anderson testified176 that at this meeting:
Mr Kimemia [the Secretary of Cabinet] asked Mr Masibo what the legal position was regarding his office issuing a Special Mining Licence, and whether there was any impediment to him issuing the licence. Commissioner Masibo responded by reading out sections of the Kenyan Mining Act and confirmed that he was within power and had full authority to issue CMK a Special Mining Licence, including for a period of 21 years…Mr Kimemia then informed Commissioner Masibo that if he was satisfied, he could issue CMK a Special Mining Licence. Commissioner Masibo indicated that he was satisfied and that he would proceed accordingly.177 (emphasis added)

[Mr. Bill]

146. In summary, the Claimants contend:
(a) the necessary EIA approval was given by Mr. Langwen, an authorized NEMA Official;154
(b) Commissioner Masibo had the discretion to convert the EIA condition precedent (set out in the conditions to SPL 256) into a condition subsequent that could be
fulfilled after SML 351 had issued; and

154 Justice Torgbor ventured into the facts and opined that EIA approval was given, and points to the letter from Benjamin Langwen dated 8 July 2013, Exhibit C-91, and an EIA review report signed by Mr. Jeremiah Wahomel According to Justice Torgbor, “having reviewed this document, it seems clear that NEMA had reviewed Cortec’s EIA and communicated approval.” (Tr. Day 6, p. 12, ll. 7-18). At that point, Justice Torgbor was no longer providing evidence of Kenyan law and had become an advocate of the facts.


The part in red is very curious IMO

(c) in any event, the Claimants’ EIA submission satisfied Mining Commissioner Moses Masbio, and it was within his discretion to find the CMK had met the EIA
condition.

[Mr. Bill]

As will be seen, Mr. Masibo issued SML 351 contrary to his own stated policy, as set out in the Roadmap, of what was required.
117. The Roadmap set out Mr. Masibo’s instructions as follows:
1. Undertake mining feasibility study on the established mineral deposit. 2. Undertake cadastral survey of the deposit area by a registered surveyor and have it approved by the Director of Surveys. 3. Undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment Study (“EIA”) for the Mining Project, Environmental Action Plans, etc approved by NEMA. EIA reports are published in the media for public comments before approval at the applicants’ cost. 4. Undertake compensation survey Estimates, negotiating rates with the land owners in case of private land. Come up with compensation Agreements. 5. Apply for the mining lease/special mining lease enclosing mining feasibility study report, approved cadastral survey by the Director of Surveys, EIA and Environmental Action Plans (EMPs) approved by NEMA, compensation agreements with land owners, company’s registration documents, financial capability, etc 6. The application is checked before being recommended to the Interministerial Prospecting and Mining Licensing Committee which sits every three months. 7. Application is published once in the Kenya Gazette and three (3) times in a local newspaper at intervals of not less than a week to invite any objections within 90 days from the date of last publication, at the cost of the applicant. 8. Carry out compensation exercise to the land owners for private land parcels. 9. Issuance of the mining/special mining lease followed by stamp duty at Land’s office.119 (emphasis added)

[Mr. Bill]

So is this the part where they say politician cant waive compliance with legal conditions - but what does the representatives signature represent? Isn't their signature binding for the entity they are representing?

104. The fact that CMK sought political intervention to try to speed things up is understandable. However, the Tribunal’s focus is on the legal requirements not the politics of the situation. By its
express terms, SPL 256 required CMK to conduct a “mine feasibility report” and an
“Environmental Impact Assessment Study” before applying for a mining licence. These
conditions were imposed on SPL 256 by authority of s. 17 of the Mining Act and s. 4(2) of the
Environmental Impact (Assessment and Audit) Regulations.
105. No amount of frustration with the bureaucracy excused CMK from non-performance of these legal conditions, nor could non-performance be waived by the politicians.

[Mr. Bill]

Agreed, that is like saying well that stuff was signed by the previous President so it no longer applies/is in force etc

So I signed a contract and later after any grace period has passed (like 3 days or whatever on major purchases) I can simply change my mind and say Oh I have HOME RULES which require that I obtain every person present in the household's permission or my signature is not valid...

Can I do the same thing LOL?

More issues as the I's were not dotted and Ts not crossed... imo

the Mrima Hill judicial review proceedings in which Mr. Juma stated in his affidavit (provided
in his capacity as a director of CMK):
a. The prospecting right number 8258…was applied for and issued to Mr. Ndung’u. It was not applied for or issued to [CMK]; b. [CMK] needed not have applied for the statutory consents in respect of the prospecting right issued to Mr. Ndung’u as it was not the applicant of that right and had not been incorporated…; and c. The prospecting right issued to Mr. Ndung’u has never been transferred or assigned to [CMK] nor does [CMK] claim any right thereunder .41
57. In short, the Government notes that pursuant to section 13(4) of the Mining Act, the prospecting right was not transferable by Mr. Ndung’u to CMK.
(

[Rocketred]

Because the New Government made it void in which is BS

[Mr. Bill]

Yea but the ICSID fees alone were more than 600K if I read correctly-

The ruling seems to suggest that an entity (ie government) as a bureaucracy can issue a license inappropriately (by failing to follow their own laws) - affix their signatures and enter into a contract - and then after the fact have the agreement made void because those who signed failed to follow their bureaucratic procedures that were in place at the time of issuance.

Why should PWCRF be punished because the government of Kenya failed to follow their bureaucracy (their laws) before issuing a license?

I fail to understand how a contract can later be made void because one of those who represented the entity failed to do their proper due diligence prior to signing a legally binding document.

[Rocketred]

Then there should of never been a ICSID case paw lost before ity ever started

[Mr. Bill]

So in reviewing the document I get these impressions/thoughts. These are just my opinion about what I believe the document is saying...

Here is my best guess at some of the critical sections and what I think they are trying to say...

* Mrima Hill had been classified as a forest/nature reserve national monument: special protected status of Mrima Hill as a forest reserve, nature reserve and national monument. No licensing authority under any law in force in Kenya shall issue a licence for any project for which an environmental impact assessment is required under the Act unless the applicant produces to the licensing authority a licence of environmental impact assessment issued by the Authority [NEMA] under these Regulations.4 (emphasis added)
* Kenya claimed the company had never satisfied necessary requirements to be granted the mining license: The Claimants challenged the “revocation” before the Kenyan High Court, which, on 20 March 2015, ruled that SML 351 was void ab initio on the basis, inter alia, that the mining of
Mrima Hill was by statute prohibited, and that in any event the Claimants had not satisfied the prerequisites to comply with Kenyan law.7 The Tribunal recognizes that resource allocation was to a significant extent intertwined with politics in Kenya in 2013, but nevertheless the regulatory system, including statutory conditions precedent to the issuance of the mining licence, required compliance
* Since the company did not comply with Kenyan mining laws on the books at the time of the 2013 mining license issuance (just before other expired) no valid new mining license existed and hence they lack jurisdiction as there was nothing that was legal that existed for the ISCID to rule on The Claimants’ own evidence establishes that SML 351 was procured by their successful political lobbying of officials of the outgoing Kibaki Government. In the Tribunal’s
view, the freshly elected Government was not bound either under domestic law or international
law by a “purported” mining licence issued under political direction in disregard of the explicit requirements of the Kenya Mining Act and other relevant Kenyan legislation.8 The Tribunal is not
bound by the decision of the Kenyan courts but has reached the independent conclusion that SML
351 was void. It was a scrap of paper issued by an irresponsible bureaucrat contrary to specific
legislative requirements. In the circumstances, the Claimants have failed to establish the existence of an investment that qualified for treaty protection. Accordingly, ICSID and the Tribunal lack jurisdiction and the claim is dismissed.

In the alternative, if SML 351 could be said to have been issued at all, it was voidable if not void. On that basis, accepting that the onus would then shift to the Respondent to establish
illegality, the Tribunal finds that the Government has established that SML 351 was issued
contrary to the laws of Kenya and international law and does not qualify as an investment protected by the Treaty or the ICSID Convention.

[Rocketred]

{{{{ICSID and the """""""Tribunal lack jurisdiction"""""" }}} ???????????????????????






and the claim is dismissed.

[Rocketred]

its over wildcat is toast

[Mr. Bill]

Lots of BS in the ruling besides what RR posted -

While the company had exclusive rights to the land (under SPL 256) others took 5 tons of samples from the land they had exclusive rights to- more shit on Pg 31 about the lack of cooperation which had begun

http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/ICSIDBLOBS/OnlineAwards/C4666/DS11650_En.pdf

Page 3-
The prospecting licence, SPL 256, expired (after two renewals) according to its own terms on 1 December 2014, without Government intervention.

POage 31-
However, on 18 November 2009, Mr.
Anderson received an email from A.K. Chumba, on behalf of Commissioner Rop, stating that
“after the expiry of [SPL 256] you will be required to relinquish half of the licence area including Mrima Hills [sic].”76 Mr. Anderson testified that on 30 November 2009, he learned that Andrew
Kimani, a “well-connected Kenyan businessman”, had been making visits to Mrima Hill since June/July 200977 and one of his associates, Sammy Mwanyas, reportedly took five tonnes of samples from the site.78 This was contrary to the exclusive rights purportedly granted to CMK under SPL 256.

The Claimants contend that there was a clear connection between the interest an influential local businessman was showing in the Mrima Hill project and the increasingly unhelpful treatment
that CMK was receiving from the Government (including the disputed actions of the KFS).

[Penstock3333]

This was a gamble sadly it didn’t work out.

[jobynimble]

Ditto...

[Mr. Bill]

Only I am RESPONSIBLE for MY INVESTMENT Decisions!!

Huge potential return, did not work out as I hoped, I placed my BUY orders

Happy with the risk I took here even if it did not work out as I had hoped

[Rocketred]

391. While the Tribunal agrees with the Government in respect of its “illegality objection”, it is
nevertheless deeply concerned about the vague terms in which the allegation of corruption was
made, and the lack of evidence given in support. The Government relied largely on surmise and
speculation. However, shortly before the Hearing on the merits in Dubai, the Claimants produced
a witness statement from Mr. Masibo dated 17 November 2017. The appearance of Mr. Masibo
401
Mr. Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, CL-52, paras. 152-155.
142
as the Claimants’ witness ought to have given the Respondent an opportunity to prove its
corruption case if there was such a case to prove.
392. Mr. Masibo’s statement gave rise to numerous issues, but despite the Claimants’ request
for additional documents in relation to what Mr. Masibo had said (or not said) in his witness
statement, it was not until Day 4 of the Hearing that the Government belatedly produced three
documents to the Claimants
402
which included two statements that Mr. Masibo had previously
given to the Kenyan authorities shortly after the events in question, namely on 22 November 2013
(Exhibit R-254) and a further statement of the same date (Exhibit R-255), both of which were
highly relevant.
393. In addition, the Government belatedly produced a transcript of proceedings against Mr.
Masibo in the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani Law Courts, Criminal Case No. 1087 of 2017
(Exhibit R-253).
394. In the course of the Hearing, the Tribunal learned from a Government witness, Mr.
Raymond Mutiso, that he had testified in the prosecution of Mr. Masibo on 20 December 2017.
The Government did not produce a transcript of this testimony.
395. In addition, and regrettably, when Mr. Masibo was cross-examined, the Government chose
not to put to him questions regarding the allegations of corruption even though such allegations
lay at the heart of the Government’s case against the Claimants. This omission was manifestly
unfair both to Mr. Masibo and the Claimants.
402
See Tr. Day 4, p. 43.
143
396. Even more egregiously, despite having failed to give Mr. Masibo an opportunity to defend
himself in the witness box, the Government persisted in its Closing Submissions to seek a finding
that Mr. Masibo had acted corruptly on the basis of “red flags” of circumstantial evidence. Mr.
Masibo ought to have been given the opportunity in cross-examination to explain away, if he could,
the allegations made against him.
397. Allegations of corruption were also made against Mr. Jacob Juma, but these too were
essentially unsubstantiated apart from some evidence that in the past Mr. Juma had provided
relatively modest amounts of money (in the neighbourhood of US $1,500.00) from time to time to
Government officials in pursuit of his various projects. None of this evidence in respect of Mr.
Juma related to the events at issue in this arbitration.
398. Essentially, the Government’s case came down to the proposition that Mr. Masibo had
conducted himself in office with such gross inconsistency and inexplicable haste as well as
disregard for his statutory duties starting from the time Mr. Jacob Juma became involved with
Mrima Hill, that the only rational explanation for his misconduct must be corruption.
399. In the Tribunal’s view, it is not appropriate for a Party to make such serious allegations of
corruption and then not only fail to support it with credible evidence but to withhold from the
opposing party documents which shed significant light on the conduct of the individual (Mr.
Masibo) at the center of the bribery allegations.
400. Accordingly, in considering the disposition of costs, notwithstanding that the Government
succeeded in its “illegality objection”, the Tribunal wishes nevertheless to express its concern at
the excessive level of the Government’s claimed costs and, more importantly, its disapproval of
the Government’s conduct of the corruption allegations.
144
401. In the circumstances, the Tribunal declines to grant the Respondent’s claim for costs of US
$6,452,858.42 but reduces the award by 50%. In the result, the Government will be entitled to
recover costs in the sum of US $3,226,429.21.
402. The costs of the arbitration, including the fees and expenses of the Tribunal, ICSID’s
administrative fees and direct expenses, amount to (in US $):
Arbitrators’ fees and expenses
Ian Binnie
Kanaga Dharmananda
Brigitte Stern
136,113.50
106,432.42
161,682.79
ICSID’s administrative fees 106,000.00
Direct expenses 134,893.57
Total 645,122.28
403. The above costs have been paid out of the advances made by the Parties in equal parts.
403
As a result, each Party’s share of the costs of arbitration amounts to US $322,561.14.
404. The Tribunal orders the Claimants to pay the Respondent US $322,561.14 for the expended
portion of the Respondent’s advances to ICSID.

[goforthebet]

exactly. smart people won´t go there

[ground_fog]

who the f would ever do business in Kenya after this. They killed a guy unreal

[jobynimble]

Took my lumps, I’m out...

[ground_fog]

Looks like a write off. If the company has any other plans it might be a good time for a pr. Otherwise, we are toast. From what i’ve Seen this was it.

[ground_fog]

No luck here with Kenya lol. First CYPE now this sheesh

[Rocketred]

yup take your chances we got screwed but nothing anybody can do

[koldkash]

Lol 99% sure loss

[jobynimble]

Oh well...

[goforthebet]

do you see any chance that this company/ shares will recover?

[Rocketred]

Kenya wins case against Cortec Mining on licences -arbitrator ruling Reuters5:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time Oct 23, 2018
NAIROBI, Oct 23 (Reuters) - The Kenyan government has won a case brought against it by Cortec Mining Kenya Limited, Cortec (pty) Limited and Stirling Capital Limited over a 2013 mining licence revocation, an arbitrators' ruling showed. Under the ruling by a tribunal at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, the government can recover $3.23 million from the claimants to settle the dispute over the revocation of licences for the Mrima Hill mining project.
(Reporting by George Obulutsa and Humphrey Malalo; Editing by Susan Fenton) (([e-mail]; Tel: [phone]; Reuters Messaging: [e-mail]))

[Penstock3333]

Yea there is a bounce play for sure probably from .005 to .02.

but anyone who bought over .04 good luck getting out at a profit.

[pennypauly]

Heavy blow! I’m out