T. Boone Pickens Invokes NAFTA

According to this article, U.S.-based energy guy T. Boone Pickens feels that he has been unfairly cut out of a deal for the sale of electricity to Canada via wind production. I have no idea about the underlying facts, but I am always happy to see investors invoking the NAFTA Chapter 11 provisions, the corresponding investment provisions in other Free Trade Agreements, or free-standing bilateral investment treaties.

In the case of NAFTA, Mr. Pickens will need to prove that a Canadian governmental entity undertook a "measure" that violated a protection provided to U.S. or Mexican investors in Canada. Those protections include:

National Treatment: This means that the investor must receive treatment that is no less favorable than would be afforded to a similarly situated domestic investor.

Most Favored Nation Treatment: This means that the investor must receive treatment that is no less favorable than would be afforded to a similarly situated investor from any other country.

Minimum Standard: This means that the NAFTA parties must provide investors from other NAFTA countries treatment consistent with international law, including fair and equitable treatment. For American lawyers, this generally correlates to due process

Compensation for Expropriation: If a measure imposed by a NAFTA party directly or indirectly expropriates the investment of an investor from another party, is is "tantamount to nationalization or expropriation" of the investment, the investor is entitled to compensation unless an exception applies. Again, for American lawyers, this is comparable to fifth amendment takings law.

So, investors under NAFTA Chapter 11 and similar agreements have important rights. In the case of the NAFTA, these rights can be invoked through the Chapter 11 dispute settlement process. Here's wishing Mr. Pickens and Mesa Power the best of luck.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more