RE:Article translated, from the Colombian point of view...Once again thanks Sailor8 for sharing your piece.
By awarding zero damages to EOM, ICSID has aligned its ruling similiar to Red Eagle and Montauk in money terms. We all know ICSID 1st ruling was in EOM's favor whilst the other 2 had their unfavorable rulings later. Between EOM's first ruling, the other 2 miners' later rulings, there must have been "closed doors" and "behind the scenes" happenings which EOM may not be aware of. EOM shareholders assumed there were private negotiations occurring. Considering Colombia's reputation of sinister "modus operandi", they manage to "persuade" the 2 of the 3 dudes to award zero damages. This contradicts ICSID 1st ruling and is a travesty of justice. It make a mockery of ICSID which should be apolitical.
EOM released this statement, part of their news release to this recent event,
"The Company strongly disagrees with the Tribunal majority's Award on Damages, considering it deeply flawed, in direct contradiction to the original majority opinion of the Decision on Liability, and inconsistent with an objective assessment of the evidence presented. The Company is currently analyzing the Award on Damages with its legal advisors and evaluating its options. Any material developments will be announced by way of future press releases".
They use mild words like "deeply flawed", "in direct contradiction" and "inconsistent" . My guess is there were "arm twisting", with a "carrot and stick" approach of threats and bribes to end up with EOM's zero award.
This latest news on EOM vs Colombia may be the talking point on global news networks esp business networks because internationalcompanies need to know there is "honest" recourse in cross country disagreements in ventures. If ICSID looses its credibilty, it makes transparent agreements worthless and "arm twisting" the name of the game. If this is the case, it makes Colombia and South America a dangerous place to invest.