- 51 -
concessionairy Authority in another 30 years, the
profits having been restricted to a reasonable level.
In its final statement on the subject, the tribunal ruled that:
taking that basis [”depreciated replacement value”] for
the fixed assets, taking the order of value indicated
in the Joint Report for the non-fixed assets, and
taking into account the legitimate expectations of the
concessionaire, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion
that, as the date of 19 September, 1977, a sum
estimated at $206,041,000 represented the reasonably
appraised value of what constituted the object of the
takeover.
Since $206,041,000 (exclusive of the compounded 10 percent “level
of inflation” the tribunal added to it) is itself less than the
sum of $185,305,000 (the only figure before the tribunal for the
depreciated replacement value of the fixed assets) and
$29,966,000 (the average value of the non-fixed assets provided
by Aminoil and Kuwait), there is an unresolved tension between
those numbers and the tribunal’s statement that it is also
compensating Aminoil for its “legitimate expectations” of a
“reasonable rate of return” from its terminated concession. That
leads us to believe that the award is ambiguous.
We are also led to believe that the award is ambiguous
because of the limited jurisdiction of the tribunal. The
tribunal was limited by Article III of the arbitration agreement
to granting Aminoil (apart from any amounts “in respect of
royalties, taxes or other obligations,” none of which were
granted Aminoil) (1) “compensation * * * in respect of assets”,
(2) “damages * * * in respect of termination [of the concession
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011