Churchill Mining advises that the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Committee has ruled that by making a unilateral pledge in signing a Deed Poll under Australian law the company has used its best efforts to pledge Port Land in Indonesia and has satisfied the condition of the committee’s decision of June 27, 2017.
Accordingly, the committee decided that the stay on enforcement of the Award of December
6, 2016 in the ICSID Case will continue pending decision on the company’s annulment application.
The formerly AIM-traded company launched annulment proceedings in April, after the ICSID determined the company’s claims that the Indonesian authorities had improperly revoked its coal mining rights was based on forged documents. It was ordered to pay $9.44 million in court and legal costs to Indonesia.
At the time of launching the proceedings, Churchill Mining said it remained ‘deeply troubled’ by many aspects of the tribunal’s decision.
In late June, the annulment committee granted Churchill a staying enforcement of the award, pending its decision on the company’s application for annulment, subject to the company pledging the land it purchased for the East Kutai Coal Project in East Kalimantan, Indonesia, as security.
Churchill’s shares had previously been cancelled from trading on AIM, as the board had announced on June 7, as the proceedings were set to take longer than the six months allowed under the AIM rules.
It had applied for admission to the NEX Exchange Growth Market as an alternative in the meantime, to ensure shareholders would continue to enjoy the protection afforded by the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers.
In a statement issued in early August, Churchill chairman David Quinlivan made the following observations, “It is disappointing but unsurprising that Indonesia has at the last minute refused to execute the irrevocable Power of Attorney (in its favour) that was prepared to give effect to the pledge of the company’s Port Land ordered by the annulment committee. It is clear to me that Indonesia intends to take the same obstructive approach to these annulment proceedings as it did in the initial arbitration.”