36 minutes ago, farcanell said:

if insurers pay out, they will be unwilling to insure other businesses

Doubt insurance covers force majeure. Junta has to pay out from their coffer if they still hanging around that long for the trial to conclude. 

9 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

The big hole will certainly make a nice garbage dump 

nice garbage dump 

 

Please don't talk about the country like that as it will put off the tourists

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Doubt insurance covers force majeure.

What would be the force majeure in the mine closure?

Invoking Article 44 clearly had a predictable (vs. unanticipated or unexpected) result - mine ceases to operate. Unless Kingsgate is held by the arbitration tribunal to be negligent in violating the operating license, it should have a valid insurance claim if such insurance exists.

I somehow suspect that the current "powers that be" wouldn't recognise (or care about) an environmental threat if they were bobbing around up to their chests in toxic waste.
The "cash" value of a productive gold mine, either to those who they serve, or as an asset to secure 'investment" is however very obvious to them.

Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Doubt insurance covers force majeure. Junta has to pay out from their coffer if they still hanging around that long for the trial to conclude. 

The “trail” needs to be concluded, before pursuing insurance, to prove that Kingsgate have done all that they can, prior to pursuing an insurance claim, aimed specifically at protecting them against unfair or illegal treatment at the hands of the Thai government.

 

This is included in documented wording.... countering force majeure .... probably because government instability in Thailand is not “unforeseeable”

 

they are insured for 200 million against government forced changes which don’t follow the prescribed course... (ie... Fair play... not following set procedures to deal with issues)

 

one issue, for example, is poisioning of locals, with kingsgate claiming to not have used the chemicals supposedly doing the poisioning....true? False?.... I bet kingsgate can prove their claim with documentation.... whereas thailand cannot prove when the supposed poisioning happened... in fact, Thai documents discredit the claim of poisioning.

 

if kingsgate losses in the international field, the Thai government is ok... so is the insurer... but if they win, and the thai government does not pay out, the insurance company is on the hook. The insurance company can also then proceed with a legal action against the Thai government.

 

so... insurance companies vs Thailand.... what other insurance companies will want to undertake the risk of insuring other business enterprises operating in thailand

 

its just business.... and the evidence is overwhelming in support of kingsgates claim.... 

 

the junta players will give themselves immunity, even though this miscarriage... action... breaking a treaty.... wiping a huge percentage from a companies assets ( public company.... mom and dad investors)... will probably cost more in coin and reputation than the yingluck witch hunt

 

but..... the Thai government... a signatory to the treaty, will still be here, and accountable.... or completely discredited.

 

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

but if they win, and the thai government does not pay out

There might be other options to recoup any Kingsgate's compensation award in accordance with the free trade agreement and the World Trade Association rules. (I am not a trade expert so will speculate).

• The Australian government can legally impose sanctions against Thailand to recover free trade benefits benefits, ie., import tariffs on Thai products, intellectual property and services that were otherwise exempted by the free trade agreement to the extent that revenues fulfill any unpaid compensation awarded to Kingsgate by the arbitration tribunal. If such imposed temporary tariffs are applied broadly and at a minimal rate (ie., 1%), the impact on Australian importers and consumers might be negligible.
• The impact on certain Thai exporters (ie., autos, electronics, refined oil) might be more affected and result in lower demand. That will slow the Thai economy.
• Thailand could then further breach the free trade agreement by retaliating with tariffs against Australian products, intellectual property and services - in essence start a trade war that might also violate the WTO regulations and most favored nation trade status. That might affect future trade agreements and perhaps lead to renegotiation of current trade agreements by other countries to resolve greater risk dealing with an unreliable Thai government. In short Thailand's foreign trade relationships may become very messy and damaging.

 

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

There might be other options to recoup any Kingsgate's compensation award in accordance with the free trade agreement and the World Trade Association rules. (I am not a trade expert so will speculate).

• The Australian government can legally impose sanctions against Thailand to recover free trade benefits benefits, ie., import tariffs on Thai products, intellectual property and services that were otherwise exempted by the free trade agreement to the extent that revenues fulfill any unpaid compensation awarded to Kingsgate by the arbitration tribunal. If such imposed temporary tariffs are applied broadly and at a minimal rate (ie., 1%), the impact on Australian importers and consumers might be negligible.
• The impact on certain Thai exporters (ie., autos, electronics, refined oil) might be more affected and result in lower demand. That will slow the Thai economy.
• Thailand could then further breach the free trade agreement by retaliating with tariffs against Australian products, intellectual property and services - in essence start a trade war that might also violate the WTO regulations and most favored nation trade status. That might affect future trade agreements and perhaps lead to renegotiation of current trade agreements by other countries to resolve greater risk dealing with an unreliable Thai government. In short Thailand's foreign trade relationships may become very messy and damaging.

 

You could be right.... in which case the Australian government would have to bail out kingsgate, then recoup costs as time goes by. (Why should kingsgate wait to be reimbursed... why should it’s shareholder?)

 

Its a risky business decision for the Australia government to make, (essentially underwriting a Thai junta debt) so it probably won’t.

 

however, an insurance claim against a purposely designed clause, supported by an international arbitration committee ruling, can’t be ignored.

 

what the international business community does with this scenario, is anyone’s guess.... and Thailand’s problem, not Australia’s

 

 

 

7 hours ago, farcanell said:

in which case the Australian government would have to bail out kingsgate, then recoup costs as time goes by.

I don't understand your reference to "bail out" and "recoup."

The Australian government simply collects "penalty" tariff revenues on Thai imports covered by TAFTA, then transfers such funds to Kingsgate until it is made whole in accordance to the binding arbitration tribunal decision. There is nothing to "recoup." There is no "bail out."

The Australian government essentially acts as a debt collector on behalf of Kingsgate in accordance with the provisions of the TAFTA, albeit it might (and should) apply against any collected revenues an "administrative fee" as unfunded government resources would be involved. I'd expect Kingsgate would be entitled to interest against the unpaid balance of Thailand's debt to Kingsgate and cost of inflation related to mining remobililzation costs as permitted by the arbitration tribunal.

Obviously, the longer the Thai government delays fulfilling any financial obligations awarded to Kingsgate by the arbitration tribunal, the more it will cost the Thai government. On the plus side, the potential of a huge and humiliating cost to the Prayut's regime to defy a compensation award to Kingsgate might motivate Prayut not to run for PM in the next election.

48 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

I don't understand your reference to "bail out" and "recoup."

The Australian government simply collects "penalty" tariff revenues on Thai imports covered by TAFTA, then transfers such funds to Kingsgate until it is made whole in accordance to the binding arbitration tribunal decision. There is nothing to "recoup." There is no "bail out."

The Australian government essentially acts as a debt collector on behalf of Kingsgate in accordance with the provisions of the TAFTA, albeit it might (and should) apply against any collected revenues an "administrative fee" as unfunded government resources would be involved. I'd expect Kingsgate would be entitled to interest against the unpaid balance of Thailand's debt to Kingsgate and cost of inflation related to mining remobililzation costs as permitted by the arbitration tribunal.

Obviously, the longer the Thai government delays fulfilling any financial obligations awarded to Kingsgate by the arbitration tribunal, the more it will cost the Thai government. On the plus side, the potential of a huge and humiliating cost to the Prayut's regime to defy a compensation award to Kingsgate might motivate Prayut not to run for PM in the next election.

The Australian Government will bail out Kingsgate via taxes on the OZ populace in the long term. Thailand will lose nothing.

16 hours ago, Dave67 said:

I'd hazard a guess that report was lost in the post

Let me put it this way... the American academic was told by the university to make no public comments about it and cease all contact with Akara executives .

45 minutes ago, tryasimight said:

Thailand will lose nothing.

Which makes taxation nonsense.

Not to mention legislation would be required, unlike imposing tariffs on Thai imports.

Why make Australians responsible for Thailand's debts?

5 hours ago, Srikcir said:

I don't understand your reference to "bail out" and "recoup."

The Australian government simply collects "penalty" tariff revenues on Thai imports covered by TAFTA, then transfers such funds to Kingsgate until it is made whole in accordance to the binding arbitration tribunal decision. There is nothing to "recoup." There is no "bail out."

The Australian government essentially acts as a debt collector on behalf of Kingsgate in accordance with the provisions of the TAFTA, albeit it might (and should) apply against any collected revenues an "administrative fee" as unfunded government resources would be involved. I'd expect Kingsgate would be entitled to interest against the unpaid balance of Thailand's debt to Kingsgate and cost of inflation related to mining remobililzation costs as permitted by the arbitration tribunal.

Obviously, the longer the Thai government delays fulfilling any financial obligations awarded to Kingsgate by the arbitration tribunal, the more it will cost the Thai government. On the plus side, the potential of a huge and humiliating cost to the Prayut's regime to defy a compensation award to Kingsgate might motivate Prayut not to run for PM in the next election.

By “bailing out” I mean that the Australian government would have to cover the debt.... pay out the debt.... assume the debt.

 

because.... “recouping” the money in dribs and drabs, here n there, to be then dispersed to the “creditor”, isn’t in kingsgates interest. No business would want this on their ledger, not even a bank.

 

And certainly not the shareholders, who want a reversal on the damage done to their shares, by injecting the worth of the lost asset back into their company  (you lend a mate 100 bucks... you want 100 back, vs (say) 400 quarters, strung out over time, with no guarantee that all 400 actually arrive)

 

but that’s just my take on the money.... show me de money!

 

anyway.... however it’s done... whatever happens... this will be interesting to watch..... and perhaps the finale may well be per your last sentence. In the meantime, stuff like this comment (below) entertain the hell out of me, and are sure to go over well in an international tribunal.

Edited January 1, 20188 yr by farcanell

5 hours ago, tryasimight said:

The Australian Government will bail out Kingsgate via taxes on the OZ populace in the long term. Thailand will lose nothing.

Kingsgate won’t be seeking a bailout.... they are still a viable company with other assets, just poorer for their amazing Thai experience.

 

kingsgate has risk insurance against government interference.... without a win in this tribunal hearing, it can’t make a claim against this insurance.

 

if Thailand losses... yes, if... it will have to pay up, or loose foreign investor confidence... scrap thailand 4.0.... scrap free trade agreements.... and the baht will likely tumble, as plans for revitalizing the economy thru foreign investment, take a beating

 

best plan for Thailand would be in negotiating something with kingsgate, like a responsible person would attempt, before the whole truth, including international recognition of dictatorial powers (or more likely, condemnation of same) plays out on the international stage.