I spent a bit of time refreshing my memory and reading up on...

I spent a bit of time refreshing my memory and reading up on Astron's long-running legal dispute with the government of the Gambia last night, so thought I'd make a post.

Background:
In 2008, Carnegie minerals (a subsidiary of Astron) had it's mineral sands mining licences cancelled by the Gambia and all it's plant and equipment confiscated. One of Carnegie's managers was also arrested at the time and later rescued by mercenaries! Anyway, the Gambian government accused Carnegie of breaking terms of their licence by mining minerals they that weren't covered by the licence. This was due to contaminants present in the mined sands apparently. The Gambia seems to have just taken over the mine since.

In 2009, Astron filed a suit against the Gambia in the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). This is a convention set up for dealing with disputes between companies and countries over multiple jurisdictions, and Gambia is a signatory along with most other countries in the world (see here: http://www.biicl.org/files/2916_icsid_club__malik_.pdf). Importantly, part of the convention is that all signatories agree to abide by ICSID arbitration outcomes as if they are rulings by each countries highest court.

ATR announcement 7/10/2014:
"Carnegie initiated an arbitration under the terms of the licence against the Gambian government seeking recovery of damages for lost profits from its operations in The Gambia. The case was heard by a panel of 3 arbitrators under the authority of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) in 2012"

Result:
The same announcement mentioned above (7/10/2014) details a comprehensive win by Astron/Carnegie. The actual amount was determined and announced in July 2015.

ATR announcement 23/7/2015
ICSID has now determined the award including damages in favour of Astron/Carnegie. The determination was for US$18,658,358 in damages for breach of the mining licence, interest of US$993,683, arbitration costs of US$445,860 (minus any sums refunded to Astron by ICSID on its final accounting) and £2,250,000 for legal costs. In total this is approximately AUD$31 million.

Current status:
There is no appeals process through ICSID, but there is an application for annulment process in the event of corruption or clear miscarriages of justice. Unfortunately this process has become standard, and about two thirds of ICSID awards are followed by an annulment application by the losing party. However, only about a quarter of annulment applications are successful, with few more partially successful and most dismissed. See here for example: http://www.allenovery.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Costs_Study__Annulment_Table.PDF

The Gambia applied to annul the award on "the grounds of of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, and arguments about admissibility and jurisdiction" - see ATR announcement 2/12/2015. These are long cases. The average time between the registration of an annulment application and final hearing is just over a year, and the average time until the final decision is 720 days since registration. See here: (http://vannin.com/press/pdfs/18-2-16_How_long_is_too_long_to_wait_for_an_award_.pdf). However, this means the hearing should be early next year. Also, I note that ATR spent almost $1 million on legal fees in the first half of this year (none last period) so that suggests the case is well under way.

Summary:
Astron has been awarded $31 in total damages relating to a mining dispute with the Gambia in 2008.
The Gambia has applied to have the decision annulled. This application is currently being heard, and should be decided in the next 6-12 months (going by average times - I hope for sooner).
Most annulment decisions are dismissed.
If this happens, ATR will be awarded an amount equivalent to 25 cents pers share, plus any further legal fees they may be awarded.

Will the Gambia pay up?
From the ICSID convention - "An award of a Tribunal is binding on all parties to the proceeding and each party must comply with it pursuant to its terms (Article 53(1) of the ICSID Convention).  If a party fails to comply with the award, the other party can seek to have the pecuniary obligations recognized and enforced in the courts of any ICSID Member State as though it were a final judgment of that State’s courts (Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention)."

Information about this case has been minimal and obscure, and I really don't get the impression anyone is following the progress except me (and maybe Lostout?).