Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-244

I think that sort of thing is too indirect, so the arbitration panel would ignore it or exclude it.

The losses have to be clear and provable.

Saying 'we sold Bowdens for cheap and now it's worth more', they'd say 'there's no proof whether you would have sold it otherwise' etc.

However, Chatree, they may say "We had 10 years of reserves left. Recent years made $50m profit per 100k oz mined. We lost $500m in likely profits on those reserves.'. They might accept that as provable losses.

However, I remember reading a case, I think about toll roads: they say that they lost huge amounts because they failed to meet bank repayment schedules (or similar), and that was directly due to the government restricting the performance of their toll road assets. So those bank loan issues were considered by the panel to be a direct and provable loss.

Bowdens seems less direct and less provable. I'd not be betting on 'extra' compensation in excess of Chatree losses. Most investor-state cases end up paying the claimant less that they're seeking (assuming they win an award).