In my openion, I think that if Thai Hongsa ignite company have broken agreement as plan, then lao government don't need to pay them because the rule is the rule in business world. event the New York court verict in favour for Thai Hongsa ignite company which it doen't means they win their case yet. lao government needs to show all evilences to the court that thai hongsa ignite company is breaking the promises and ignorance in dealing business and they just do monkey business with us.
1. It's not the LPDR to pay. The new investors of the project are, according to an article in the new investment agreement in the Hongsa Lignite project. Still, the new investors are 2 Thai companies and a Chinese counterpart as we know. That part of the agreement states very cleary that the new investors are liable for any damages incurred from the agreement.
2. As far as I know, the former investors are currently asking the NY court to issue 5 more orders-- including one that will enforce a foreclosing procedure. If these conjunctions are granted the attourney of the other side can seize any asset of the LPDR around the globe, anything at all, including her embassy land and buildings in the DC.
(A German company has used a similar process in dealing with the Thai government that lead to the seizing of the private jet plane of Thailands's royal crown prince at the Hambourg Airport lasty month. This could happen to Laos too.)
A worse scenario can be that;
3. If the case cannot be settled in the NY court the other side can start similar legal cases in trade courts in other countries in order to force the LPDR to pay for the damage -- following the USA precedence. It means that they can seize LPDR's assets in those countries, if those repective courts agree.
We should ask our government to tell us the truth --at least about what the government is doing on this issue.
Please writes it cystal clear about your PASALAO because I don't clear you understand at all of this sentence= ແມ່ນລູກອີຫ່າໃດມັນຕາແຕກບໍ່??????????????????????????????
ກະທູ = what is it meaning of this word? I never see or heard in lao language.
First of all, the fight in the court now is separated from the original arbitration ruling. Lao government lost the ruling and the judgement is final. The current legal proceeding is brought by the lawyer representing Thai-Lao Lignite (TLL) to enforce the judgement. Lao governmnet has to pay. The question is does it wants to do it voluntarily or through court's order seizure of its assets.
This court order to seize Lao government assets oversea is very hard to enforce because Lao does not have many properties outside of Laos and most, if not all of those property are falling under diplomatic immunity. The lawyer for TLL will have to prove to the court that the property seized is not used for diplomatic purposes.
The final and biggest question is why haven't the Lao government cleared this issue with TLL right after the arbitration ruling? They should have negotiated with the company to reduce the payment instead of letting the case runs through the judicial system of another country with the accumulation of lawyers fee and interest on the original sum awarded. This shows that the Lao government is either irresponsible or does not understand international laws governing trade and investment. Who would want to invest in Laos if government acts in this manner? How will this looks to the WTO members when they see Laos ignores international agreements while Laos is applying to become WTO member?
First of all, the fight in the court now is separated from the original arbitration ruling. Lao government lost the ruling and the judgement is final. The current legal proceeding is brought by the lawyer representing Thai-Lao Lignite (TLL) to enforce the judgement. Lao governmnet has to pay. The question is does it wants to do it voluntarily or through court's order seizure of its assets.
This court order to seize Lao government assets oversea is very hard to enforce because Lao does not have many properties outside of Laos and most, if not all of those property are falling under diplomatic immunity. The lawyer for TLL will have to prove to the court that the property seized is not used for diplomatic purposes.
l
The final and biggest question is why haven't the Lao government cleared this issue with TLL right after the arbitration ruling? They should have negotiated with the company to reduce the payment instead of letting the case runs through the judicial system of another country with the accumulation of lawyers fee and interest on the original sum awarded. This shows that the Lao government is either irresponsible or does not understand international laws governing trade and investment. Who would want to invest in Laos if government acts in this manner? How will this looks to the WTO members when they see Laos ignores international agreements while Laos is applying to become WTO member?
I totally agree with your comment, why Lao Government still keep quiet without fight it back.
What is interesting, is the collusion between officials in the Lao Government of Banpu to oust TLL from the Hongsa Lignite Project. Banpu is even willing to cover all legal cost if TLL persues the dispute through the legal process. This is evidence in paragraph 31.
Lao Government should request it partner (Banpu) to pay TLL all the costs associate with this case since the company has made that commitment. The longer this case drags on, the more it damages Laos image to potential investors around the world. The idea of gaining WTO membership is to attract world-wide investors rather than relying on investors from China, Vietnam and Thailand. Foreign direct investment from many sources is what Laos needs to counter the regional investors who tend to demand influence and favor from government official thus threatening Lao independence and governance transparency.
