Stans Energy Corp V.HRE.H

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Why the change?

[Kaliahk]

goldgoose, there are a number of potential arguments that could be made by Stans. They just have not disclosed that they are making them. It would be nice if they would post copies of the pleadings so an evaluation could be made. Yes, consent to jurisdiction can be implied by taking part in an action. From what I can discern by the limited disclosures made (including reading the voluminous decision by MCCI), is that it found two basis for jurisdiction - (1) choice was allowed by the CIS treaty (which now seems to be established as wrong by advisory decision of CIS court - notwithstanding the "opinion" of counsel Stans posted), and (2) the consent by the Kyrgs to investor choice of jurisdiction under treaty through by the Kyrgs laws. This second basis was very "strained" in my opinion. No reference was made to the "consent" of the Kyrgs to jurisdiction. If you will recall they first asked for a delay to hire counsel, then they made a motion objecting to jurisdiction. They did not participate in any of the proceedings on the merits of Stans claims. In fact, I believe they filed in Russian court to stop the proceeding before Stans presented its case and the award was made on jurisdictional grounds. Can't say what Russian law is, but the question is was the Kyrgs initial appearance enough to be considered consent? - a yes answer to that is the best hope Stans has in my opinion. But without a lot more detail, it is not one upon which I would bet the rent money.