tutorial video tutorial video Discover the CiteMap in 3 minutes
Source(s) of the information:

Lawyers and other representatives

Decision on Supplemental Decisions and Rectification

[1].
The Tribunal has considered the Request for Supplemental Decisions and Rectifications submitted by Amco on 6 August 1990: and the Memorandum submitted by Indonesia on 14 August 1990.
[2].
Amco's Request was based on Article 49 of the ICSID Convention and Rule 49 of the Arbitration Rules. It called for decisions on specified questions which the Tribunal was said to have omitted to decide. It also asked for the rectification of matters identified as clerical, arithmetical or similar errors.
[3].
Amco claimed that the Tribunal omitted to decide certain questions relating to the following: (1) Rate of Exchange. (2) 1978 Profit-Sharing Agreement. (3) Aeropacific Depreciation. (4) Net Cash Flow, (5) 1980 Inflation Rate, (6) 1990-99 Discount Rate. (7) Ramada. Amco also requested that clerical, arithmetical or similar errors be rectified in respect of the first six matters above-listed.
[4].
The Tribunal decides as follows, in relation to each of the matters:

(1) Rate of Exchange

[5].
In its Decision on Jurisdiction the Tribunal had affirmed that the applicable date for converting to US Dollars any damage expresses in rupiahs is the date that the damage occurred. The Tribunal has made clear in its Award that what was lost was a share in a stream of profit. The damage was necessarily year by year damage. At paragraphs 250-253 of its Aware of 5 June 1990, the Tribunal explained the basis of the year by year exchange rate to be applied in converting rupiahs to US dollars for purposes calculating damages.
[6].
The Tribunal’s decision was fully compatible with the res judicata refer.. to by Amco. There has thus been no decision that the Tribunal has omitted to take; nor any clerical, arithmetical or similar error that must be rectified

(2) 1978 Profit-Sharing Agreement

[7].
The Tribunal has made it clear in its Decision on Jurisdiction (paras 13 and 14) that the ad hoc Committee had annulled the First Tribunal’s findings on the amount of damages. Matters going to the amount of damages, including interpretation of relevant agreement between the parties, were thus for reargument before this Tribunal. Amco and Indonesia availed themselves of this opportunity, both in relation to the 1978 Profit-Sharing Agreement and otherwise. There is thus no question under this head that the Tribunal omitted to decide; nor any clerical, arithmetical or similar that must be rectified.

(3) Aeropacific Depreciation

[8].
At paragraph 221 of the Award, the Tribunal stated that the net book value of assets transferred to Amco under the Amco/Aeropacific Settlement Agreement of March 29, 1980(0. Exh. 18) was Rp. 421,451,054. This was the amount that appeared in the 1978 audited financial statements of Aeropacific (Cl. Exh. 61. schedule II. p. 23, vol. II. Previously Filed Cl. Docs) and at pp. 70 and 80 of Amco’s Memorial.
[9].
The Table A2 of the Memorial uses the higher figure of Rp. 642,705,992. Mr Mathias, testifying for Indonesia on 22 September 1989. explained that the upward adjustment would have been made by Pannell. Kerr. Forster to take into account market inflation and the depreciation of the rupiah against the dollar between 1978 and 1980. The Tribunal, finding this unusual accounting, as Mr Mathias himself indicated, has preferred to rely on the figure at pp. 70 and 80 of Amco’s Memorial.
[10].
However, in column 7 of the table appearing at p. 170 of the Award, depreciation figures were used which were based on a larger net book value of Rp. 625,730,000 (value of the assets as of 9 July 1980 rather than as of 1 April 1980).
[11].
There has been no decision that the Tribunal has omitted to take; however, a clerical, arithmetical or similar error has been committed that must be rectified.
[12].
Column 7 of the tables appearing at pages 170 and 171 must accordingly be changed on the basis of the depreciation of Aeropacific assets totalling of Rp. 421,451,054.
[13].
This results in a number of changes in the following columns in those tables. Therefore, new pages 170 and 171 are attached making the appropriate consequential changes.
[14].

The first decision under the Award (pp. 176-7) is amended accordingly to read:

(1) The Republic of Indonesia shall pay to Amco Asia Corporation. Pan American Development Limited and P.T. Amco Indonesia, jointly ("the Claimants"), the sum of two million six hundred and seventy-seven thousand and one hundred and twenty six US dollars and twenty cents (US S2,677,126.20) with the interest on this amount at the rate of six per cent (6 %) per annum from the date of the Award until the date of effective payment. The above sum includes a set off of one hundred and twenty-eight thousand and three hundred and sixty-three US dollars and eighty cents (US $128,363.80) for the amount including interest owed by the Claimants for their share of the costs of the Annulment Proceedings referred to in paragraph 295.

(4) Net Cash Flow

[15].
In its Award the Tribunal rejected Amco’s claim "that it was entitled to the Hotel cash flow, less PT Wisma’s profit share" (paras 223-4). The parties’ entitlement was to their agreed share of the profits and not to the cash flow. That is reflected in the Tribunal’s findings and in the accompanying figures. There has thus been no decision that the Tribunal has omitted to take; nor any clerical, arithmetical or similar error that must be rectified.

(5) 1980 Inflation Rate

[16].
In its Award the Tribunal has clearly stated why it has applied the actual year by year average inflation rate between 1980 and 1990. In identifying the actual figure, the Tribunal has applied the best neutral data available rather than either of two contending figures of the parties.
[17].
There is no decision that the Tribunal has omitted to take; nor any clerical, mathematical or similar error that must be rectified.

(6) 1990-99 Discount Rate

[18].
The discount rate technique adopted by the Tribunal necessarily entailed the decision that a rupiah inflation rate was to be used in discounting future dollars to present values. There is no decision that the Tribunal has omitted to take: nor any clerical mathematical or similar error that must be rectified.

(7) Ramada

[19].
As has already been stated, the Tribunal in its Decision on Jurisdiction. held that matters going to the amount of damages were open to reargument Both Amco and Indonesia availed themselves of this opportunity, in respect of the matters relating to Ramada and otherwise.
[20].
There is thus no decision under this heading that the Tribunal omitted to take.
Whole document
para.
Click on the text to select an element Click elsewhere to unselect an element
Select a key word :
1 /