Some Awful NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbritration Cases- and a chart

[cali]

and other U.S. FTA agreements. Handy reference. Note that early cases met with less success. Note also that the same system will be part of the TPP and the TTIP. I could go on and on listing these awful cases- not just the NAFTA ones either- but I don't want to wear your eyeballs out in this post. I will keep posting these cases. Please read them.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/investor-state-chart1.pdf

Here's one recent case:

Canada has lost a battle with Exxon Mobil Corp. and Murphy Oil Corp. before a NAFTA arbitration panel over whether the U.S. companies can be forced to boost their research-and-development spending in Newfoundland.

The two companies, involved in the Terra Nova and Hibernia oil projects off the shores of Newfoundland, sued Ottawa in 2007 under the North American free-trade agreement’s long-controversial Chapter 11 provisions, which allow U.S. and Mexican investors in Canada to challenge government policies.

The case is a win for oil companies in their tug-of-war over revenues with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which reached a high point under combative former premier Danny Williams.

But it also illustrates how Ottawa always ends up with the bill when provinces violate the terms of trade agreements that they didn’t sign. In 2010, the federal government paid out $130-million to AbitibiBowater Inc. after Newfoundland expropriated the company’s timber and water rights. Several other current NAFTA challenges involve provincial policies.

<snip>

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-loses-nafta-battle-to-exxon/article4224936/


Here's another case. It involves a project by a U.S. company that would threaten the environment, the community and protected whales.

THE COMPANY that wanted to develop a quarry on Digby Neck will seek damages of at least US$188 million for the way Canada handled its environmental review of the project.

In a notice of intent to be filed today in Ottawa, Bilcon of Delaware is seeking a massive compensation package under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

And be warned, folks: If Canada loses this trade action, Nova Scotia will end up coughing up a lot of cash.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/international-politics/71134-canada-being-sued-under-nafta.html

AbitibiBowater case:

In the AbitibiBowater case, the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador (led by feisty Premier Danny Williams, a Conservative) took back Abitibi’s timber and water rights in 2008 when that company abandoned its mill that processed wood from that tract. The company laid off 800 people and destroyed the isolated community of Grand Falls in the process. Williams’ move was both morally and economically justified: he said if AbitibiBowater wasn’t going to productively use those rights, someone else should have access to them. The Newfoundland government offered to pay fair value for the real assets (including the plant’s hydro dam) caught up in the action, minus expenses for worker severance and environmental clean-up of the company’s abandoned facility.

Indeed, today Williams stands by his audacious act, which was hugely popular in Newfoundland. He recently said, “Of the many things that I’ve done … in government, this is probably one of the actions that I’m the most proud of.” But Abitibi, predictably, raised a hue and cry. But they didn’t complain to a Canadian court of law: what Williams’ government did was unusual, but hardly illegal. Instead, they went straight to NAFTA’s kangaroo court.

Since NAFTA is an international treaty, it is the federal government who speaks for Canada – even when the claim is directed against a provincial government. Usually these Chapter 11 cases drag on for years. Amazingly, however, Canada’s federal officials settled the case out of court this week. They agreed to pay damages of $130 million, only 6 months after Abitibi formally filed its NAFTA complaint.

<snip>

http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/nafta%E2%80%99s-chapter-11-the-latest-giveaway/

Here's one that should really astound.. It's pending. The company is asking for $3.5 billion.

One day after the Canadian government offered to loan Michigan $550 million to cover construction costs associated with a new Detroit-Windsor crossing, the company that owns the Ambassador Bridge says it is preparing file a North American Free Trade Agreement claim against Canada for the same amount.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has praised Canada's offer, saying construction of the publicly-funded Detroit River International Crossing -- a proposed partnership between the Michigan, Ontario, U.S. and Canadian governments -- will not cost the state a penny but will create jobs and increased trade opportunities.

However, as we discussed earlier, the public crossing would create competition for the privately-owned Ambassador Bridge, which also connects Detroit to Windsor and generates an estimated $60 million in annual toll revenues.

<snip>

In a statement released earlier today, Detroit International Bridge Co. attorney Patrick Moran explained the company will file a NAFTA claim against the Canadian government, suggesting the publicly-backed bridge would unfairly punish the private company.

<snip>

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/04/ambassador_bridge_company_file.html

[cali]

1. kick. if you don't feel like reading each of these, read the Detroit bridge one.

[djean111]

2. another kick.

Should there be a TPP / trade agreement forum? Easier to point to when someone says oh what's the fuss or whatever. Or maybe that would make this horrible stuff easier to avoid. There are forums I stay out of
Thanks for keeping us up to date!!!!!!!

[cali]

4. thanks. the more research I do, the more horrifying shit I find.

Because I'm aware of my own confirmation bias, I've tried to find opposing points of view that make sense. Not easy.

As far as the forum goes, I guess my feeling is not enough exposure.

[Egalitarian Thug]

3. K&R Same as it ever was.

So sad

[octoberlib]

5. K&R! Thanks for posting. nt

[woo me with science]

6. K&R

[obxhead]

7. They won't be happy until they have every penny they didn't earn.

Thanks cali

[Enthusiast]

8. Thanks, cali. Those are good illustrations of why we should oppose the TPP.

Corporate supremacy just isn't complete enough.

[Supersedeas]

9. whoa...great post cali