< types >> NRLA 🙂 >> >> >>
FOR.technique: https://cocoo.uk/finco-groupfinancing-is-sa/ RLCM: https://cocoo.uk/20342-2/
******************ETHICS******************
a lawyer attempting to benefit from ongoing litigation in which they are not involved, could be considered unethical and potentially subject to disciplinary action, as could give rise to conflicts of interest…ex: my offerings to parties in ECJ, or CAT, would be unethical, so i will not be seeking cases from ecj, or from: – monetary.LIVE.FOCS.2.CAT.search (monet.claims are indiv.co.v.co, as there is no focol to collect them) – LIVE.focols.2.cat.search …..why? : for inhouse.sols, COIS (conflicts of interest) may arise: If the solicitor has a personal financial interest in the outcome of the case beyond their normal employment; or If the solicitor is director of a subsidiary or leading a sales initiative……..When acting as a solicitor, you must maintain professional independence and provide impartial legal advice to the company…..Best interests of the company: As both director and solicitor, you have a duty to act in the best interests of Cocoo Ltd. Ensure that the decision to litigate is made in your capacity as director, based on sound business judgment >>Documentation: Clearly document your decision-making process, separating your roles as director and solicitor. This can help demonstrate that you’ve maintained professional independence and acted in the company’s best interests….IN CASE YOU ARE FACE WITH COMPLAINTS FOR: 1. Conflict of interest: As both the sole employee and in-house solicitor, you have a dual role that could compromise your professional independence. 2. Solicitation: Directly approaching parties involved in ongoing litigation to offer legal services is generally considered unethical and may violate professional conduct rules. 3. Interference with existing representation: Offering services to parties who may already have legal representation could be seen as an attempt to interfere with that relationship >> cocoo ignores LIVE cases: in cat, ecj, and open arbitrations. COCOO DRAFTS USPS FROM SCRATCH. I LOOK FOR NEW TORT.DAM.FOCOLS
****************COSTS AND LOSSES*****************
-2 tort harm types: a/loss >> damages.foc b/cost (ex: -exts) >> loss >> damages.foc
-2 types of costs:
a. shortterm (private) costs : borne by producers or consumers = DIRECT VICTIMS
b. longterm (external) costs = social costs (borne by 3Ps that become INDIRECT VICTIMS. are not parties to the ua >> tort.dams and/or , in EEACs (if no standing given to cocoo) >> i lobby for pigovian.tax(rev.2.victims) and/or lobby for perpetrators to internalise their nexs )….. how come these 3Ps become victims? becos the (external) costs they pay, are NOT reflected in the gws price >> gws overprod or overconsumption
2 types of longtermcosts: a/ NEXS: (-EXTS) (ex polution). b/PEXS (+EXTS): benefits to indirect (3p) BENEFICIARIES, not reflected in the gws price.
– 2 redress types: unlike COMPENSATION (damages), RESTITUTION, is to recover the perpetrator’s gains (result of my contribution), instead of recover the victim’s losses. a single claim cannot claim both comp + restit. are alternatives. restit is more rare than comp, and have longer TLs
****************CLAIM TYPES (by harm-type)*****************
1. harm: wpi, democracy >> remedy, costs, tort losses >> JR.notmerits (2.CAT.ECJ) : COCOO V CMA.EC
very tough. The CMA.EC only *UVPRIORs, if prioritises unreasonably, irrationally, and outside its statutory duty >> cocoo: JR@cat v cma. *UVPRIOR = (prioritising.ultravires) – cma.applying.priorit.pples.beyond the powers delegated to them via (SI=2leg) =discretionary powers) . tl = 5 years. th
2/harm: loss >> TORT.DAM
3/ harm: neg.ext.costs (from cma.ec.top MATOIPO CLEARANCE (ex.sustua cleared after BA allows cocons in exch for sust/wpi >> cocoo o.2.ADP.tort.dam.sac pro victims of such cocons
(no foc poss*) tort clp damages (including dams emerging from neg.ext.costs (NECs)). *FOC not possible, based on a cma’s decision to clear a matoipo. focs require a finding of an infringement of competition law, which a clearance decision does not provide. *SAC is possible, as merger clearance does not provide immunity from private antitrust actions. but he bop for the claimant in higher than in a foc, as need to prove the cocon, (and not just the harm, and the causality between both). the court will need to consider the CMA’s BA (sustainability.gains. V. cocons) >> I WILL USE the possibility of cat/natcourt reconsidering the cma.ec’s decision (BA), as a threat against the merged company, to force it into a nice settlement….ow: cat.natcourt’s decision may trigger a ec.cma’s duty.2.review the matoipo decision, and, a new decision may force the merged company to divest.
- >> any victims (neg.ext.costs >> tort.dams) of clp violations caused by the cleared matos (specially in SUSTUAS, where there are recognised clp violations, allowed for a sust.benefit) >> ADP allegations from cocoo:
-NON-NOTIFIED MATOS >> CMA.EC HAS MAX. 4 MONTHS POSTMATO (to decide if there is a pot RMS)>> cocoo to identify unnotified matos, and put pressure on cma.ec to review
-NOTIFIED-REVIEWED MATOS (I dont include cases of ‘simplified.proc’)
>> Forth.pot. adp/rms : cocoo v plc: >> cocoo to argue ADP, by identifying changing market conds…that require a new cma.ec review of exisinting conds/undkins/remedies…. ex: oct.24: EC cleard the proposed acquisition of Groupe Courir SAS (‘Courir’) by JD Sports Fashion Plc Group (‘JD Sports’), subject to conditions
4/harm: ITA contractual dams >> ARB (person v nation person v person), or WTO (nation v nation)
i draft USP , to victim.investors, for NEW investor.v.nation settlements, and , to victim.nations, for NEW nation.v.nation (wto proceedings, for a nation, itself, to litigate)
COCOO prefers ARB.CASES [OVER WTO (DSP) CASES]. cocoo is not allowed as 3pint or challenger. Instead, cocoo will offer (to either party) its non-reserved legal opinion on a pro-bono basis (expenses paid)…WHY?:
- WTO ALLOWS NO 3PINTS (OTHER THAN NATIONS): Only (WTO) Member governments have direct access to the DSP, either as parties or as third parties…..WHILE ARB. ALLOWS 3PINTS TO SUPPORT A PARTY OR TO CHALLENGE THE ARB.DECISION, BUT ONLY IF BOTH PARTIES AGREE (which is most unlikely)
2. ( cocoo COULD GAIN locus v nations) BUT IN (cocoo has no WTO-locus v nations), to challenge systemic wto tbs harming a nation’s wpi….Also, cocoo can make PETITIONS to wto…..my main points: globalisation/spills/deadweights/financialisation/IP<>clp/ means of production should be based in africa, and farmers should be paid reasonably, etc
: gd.pdf.GTA:tariff.jumping + + +
+ (exs of ‘no panel yet’: wto: indonesia v eu wto:eu.v.china wto:china.v.eu(electric.cars) wto:china.v.eu(electric.cars)-2 wto:china.v.canada wto:eu.v.china(diary.products) wto:china.v.turkey(electric.cars) …..)
prompts: -any SIs (state interventions-ex:SA) that may affect foreign trade?; -COCOO O2inspect.all.ITAS: did the consultation include all pot. implicated parties? was there any sector, industry, or community left out?: if so >> invalid ITA; -cocoo to offer advice to nations (on pot/actual cases), and to approach plcs pot/act harmed by nations’s litig ,or failure to litig, or failure to properly litigate
COCOO HAS CONSTIT.O2.constantly.monitor:
b/Nightwish12@xx contact@…. = eu.login…… eu’s market access DB.singleentrypoint.complaints eu.tb.search eu.report.tbs + the Single Entry Point has developed two complaint forms, one on market access/trade barriers and one on sustainability issues The Single Entry Point can support you when you are preparing your complaint – you can contact the Single Entry Point directly on trade-single-entry-point@ec.europa.eu To report coercion issues: submit information as regards economic coercion incidents on trade-anti-coercion-single-contact-point@ec.europa.eu coercion.instrument circabc (CIRCABC is a eu intranet to join interest groups and other users (ex competition) and to share information with them) ongoing eu’s WTO dispute settlement cases (PDF)
c/ ustr.gov = the usa.nte.rftbs (nat.trade estimates report on foreign trade barriers): lists the wto-imposed tradebarriers (tbs) : are they lawful?. have the nations complied with the tbs?…….2024’s NTE Report covers significant foreign trade barriers in 59 markets
>> EU.ACTIVE.DISP.SETTLE.CASES.MONTHLY.ISSUE: NOV.24.gdpdf
= WTO cases involving the EU as a complainant or respondent, cases under bilateral agreements, and cases under the Trade Barriers Regulation (TBR)
HOW.2.file an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) claim: (EX.LIKE MY COMPANIES ARE FILING V. SPAIN)
Steps: Verify Jurisdiction: 1/Determine which arbitration rules apply based on the treaty. 2/Draft the Notice of Arbitration: Ensure it complies with the treaty and relevant arbitration rules. 3/Submit the Claim: Use the email or online form provided by the applicable institution:
1. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): Most ISDS claims are filed with ICSID, a part of the World Bank Group. If the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) or another bilateral investment treaty specifies ICSID, you can file a claim through their platform. icsidsecretariat@worldbank.org https://icsid.worldbank.org ICSID Filing Instructions
2. Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA): The PCA also handles disputes under the ECT and other treaties. Contact: Email: info@pca-cpa.org https://pca-cpa.org
3. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL): If the ISDS mechanism specifies UNCITRAL arbitration rules, you must engage an arbitral tribunal. UNCITRAL itself does not administer disputes but provides the rules. https://uncitral.un.org UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
4. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC): For treaties allowing disputes under ICC arbitration, use ICC resources for filing. Email: adr@iccwbo.org https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration