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

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

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

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more