"(i) Declare that Respondent’s 7 May 2014 Post Hearing Brief is on the record for the Arbitral Tribunals’ deliberations, and in particular as to; (a) jurisdiction, (b) merits, and (c) damages;
(ii) Confirm Claimants’ 9 Sept. 2013 submissions are on the record, and in particular: (a) Claimants’ Response on Approval / Illegality including its ¶16, (b) C-858 and (c) C-880 Including its ¶ 5;
(iii) Confirm Claimants’ 15 Oct. 2013 Skeleton Argument is on the record, and in particular its ¶60;
(iv) Confirm R-087 is on the record;
(v) Confirm the corrected hearing transcripts are on the record, including in particular (a) Claimant Rudiger’s testimony, (b) Claimant Heinrich’s testimony and (c) Mr Schofield’s testimony;
(vi) Declare that Claimants’ assertions discussed herein constitute "emergence of new evidence";
(vii) Declare that, under Arbitration Rule 26(3) "Special circumstances" exist;
(viii) Note that Claimants freely availed themselves of their Skeleton Argument and Oral Proceedings to muddle and to raise key, new assertions that Zimbabwe Reserve Bank BIT- access-condition approval (a) requirement was known to Claimants at the time of their acquisition of Border; (b) was required for Border; (c) was obtained for Border; (d) was set out in C-858; but note also that (e) R-087 states the condition "there will be no change in the ultimate beneficial ownership of Tanks Investments (Zimbabwe) Limited" and (f) Claimants' submissions have created last-minute confusion and should declare (g) that further limited clarification by Claimants as to Zimbabwe Reserve Bank BIT-access-condition approval for Border is necessary, subject to parallel rebuttal by Respondent;
(ix) Note that Claimants freely availed themselves of Oral Proceedings to raise new assertions that Zimbabwe Reserve Bank BIT-access-condition approval (a) requirement was known to Claimants at the time of their acquisition of Forrester; (b) was required for Forrester; (c) was obtained for Forrester; but also note that (d) Claimants have not provided any name of the party holding any such approval or any documentation of such BIT-access-condition approval of Forrester and (e) Claimants' submission has created last-minute confusion and declare (f) that further limited clarification by Claimants Zimbabwe Reserve Bank BIT-access-condition approval for Forrester is necessary, subject to parallel rebuttal by Respondent; and
(x) Note that Respondent does not oppose the Arbitral Tribunals authorising Claimants to make, within a reasonable period from receipt of the present Procedural Statement by Respondent, a short Brief further clarifying, arguing, explaining their position (a) on the key, new assertions discussed above Claimants made in their Skeleton Argument and during Oral Proceedings; (b) as to whether Claimants did obtain valid Zimbabwe Reserve Bank BIT-access-condition for Border;
(c) as to whether Claimants did obtain valid Zimbabwe Reserve Bank BIT-access condition for Forrester; and (d) on the related (i) C-858, (ii) C-880 and (iii) R-08 7, provided that Respondent may submit a rebuttal under reasonable conditions."
(3) Any step taken after expiration of the applicable time limit shall be disregarded unless the Tribunal, in special circumstances and after giving the other party an opportunity of stating its views, decides otherwise.
Saxonian Estate as we acquired from the Société de General... had various company boxes, but the beneficiary owner was Société de Generale in Brussels, and they had put the Zimbabwean Tank Assets [i.e. Franconian] into Saxonian Limited with approval of Reserve Bank, and afterwards, Saxonian Estate Shares were acquired by us.
Already registered ?