Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Eco Oro Minerals Corp C.EOM

Alternate Symbol(s):  GYSLF

Eco Oro Minerals Corp. is a Canadian precious metals exploration and development company. The Company was focused on the development of the Angostura Project in northeastern Colombia, which consists of the main Angostura deposit and its five satellite prospects. The International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Arbitration Claim became the core focus of the Company.


CSE:EOM - Post by User

User Avatar Image
(5)
•••
  • NaturalCurrencyX
Post by NaturalCurrencyon Mar 16, 2025 12:01pm
86 Views
Post# 36495403

Some Examples

Some ExamplesFrom ChatGPT

Here are some notable examples where rectification proceedings or similar mechanisms have led to significant changes in arbitral awards:
 
1. **Occidental Petroleum Corporation v. Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11)**:
   - In this case, the tribunal initially awarded Occidental Petroleum $1.77 billion in damages. However, Ecuador requested a rectification, arguing that the tribunal had made an error in calculating the damages. The tribunal agreed and reduced the award to $1.06 billion. This demonstrates how rectification can lead to substantial changes in the financial outcome of a case.
 
2. **CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8)**:
   - Argentina sought rectification of the award, claiming that the tribunal had made errors in its reasoning. While the rectification proceeding did not overturn the substantive decision, it clarified certain aspects of the award, which had implications for its enforcement.
 
3. **Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentina (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3)**:
   - In this case, Argentina requested rectification of the award, arguing that the tribunal had miscalculated damages. The tribunal acknowledged the error and adjusted the award accordingly.
 
These examples show that while rectification proceedings are typically limited in scope, they can lead to significant adjustments in awards, particularly in cases involving calculation errors or ambiguities. However, overturning a no-damages ruling, as in Eco Oro's case, would require demonstrating a clear and material error that directly impacted the tribunal's decision.
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>
Dealroom for high-potential pre-IPO opportunities