|
|
Sep 25, 2008 16:53 ET
TORONTO, ONTARIO–(Marketwire - Sept. 25, 2008) - Centerra Gold Inc. (TSX:CG) stated today that as a result of ongoing discussions with the Kyrgyz Government regarding the Kumtor project it has agreed to suspend the international arbitration proceedings initiated by the Company, which had been previously postponed to September 29, 2008. The parties have agreed that this suspension will allow for these discussions to continue and for the parties to concentrate on resolving outstanding issues relating to the project.
About Centerra
Centerra is a growth-oriented, gold Company focused on acquiring, exploring, developing and operating gold properties primarily in Asia, the former Soviet Union and other emerging markets worldwide. Centerra is a leading North American-based gold producer and the largest Western-based gold producer in Central Asia and the former Soviet Union. Centerra’s shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol CG. The Company is based in Toronto, Canada.
Additional information
Additional information on Centerra is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and the Company’s website at www.centerragold.com.
September 25, 2008 (WiredPRNews.com - Featured, Law)
The Texas Supreme Court recently examined an arbitration agreement between an employee and an employer. In re Poly-America, L.P., Ind., No. 04-1049, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008). When hired by Poly-America, Johnny Luna agreed to submit any claims against his employer to arbitration. Luna suffered a work-related injury and was later fired. Luna sued, asserting retaliatory discharge under the Workers’ Compensation Act. After the trial court granted Poly-America’s request for arbitration, Luna sought a writ of mandamus from the appellate court and obtained a ruling that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. Poly-America then sought review by the Texas Supreme Court.
An arbitration agreement covering statutory claims is valid if it does not require a party to waive a statute’s substantive rights and remedies. Here, the arbitration agreement prohibited an award of either punitive damages or reinstatement—key remedies under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Because of this, the Court found those provisions unconscionable and void. The Court next examined a fee-splitting provision and a discovery-limiting provision. The Court concluded that the arbitrator would be better able to determine whether those provisions would hinder Luna from pursuing his statutory rights and thus declined to rule on their enforceability.
Because the agreement contained a severability clause, the Court found that the liability-limiting provisions should be severed from the otherwise enforceable agreement and conditionally granted the writ of mandamus.
To learn more about arbitration agreements, contact the Dallas employment law attorneys at Clouse Dunn Khoshbin LLP at info@cdklawyers.com.
Stephen Surgeoner, Cecilia Moss and Aoife Scannell
United Kingdom, USA
September 18 2008
Contracting parties often spend considerable time drafting dispute resolution mechanisms. These contractual clauses address a multitude of questions, such as: should disputes be litigated or arbitrated? What is the best jurisdiction or seat? Which law and rules (if any) should govern? Should there be some form of mediation? Indeed, for many years, legal advisers have been pressing this point and it is now reasonably rare to find a contract with an incoherent dispute resolution mechanism.
Click to continue reading “Arbitration consolidation in the US and UK”
Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky
USA
September 22 2008
Section 1782 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code is a powerful, but probably much underutilized, weapon in the arsenal of those who practice in the international litigation arena. Over the past few years, there has been much written about whether Section 1782 may be used in connection with an international arbitration proceeding. Recently, the International Commercial Disputes Committee of the City Bar Association (of which the authors are members) issued a report that analyzed this issue and recommended a number of “best practices.” This article discusses certain highlights of that Report.[1]
Click to continue reading “Use of Section 1782 in aid of international arbitration”
