CLAIMANT’S CLAIMS ARE ADMISSIBLE Sample Clauses

CLAIMANT’S CLAIMS ARE ADMISSIBLE. ‌ 45 By commencing arbitration proceedings before this Tribunal, Xxxxxxxx acted entirely in accordance with the BIT, which grants investors the right to submit any investment disputes to arbitration for resolution. The fact that Xxxxxxxx sought an interim relief from Kronian courts prior to these proceedings has no merit in rendering Xxxxxxxx's claims inadmissible. Its application to Respondent's national courts does not bar Claimant to pursue arbitration due to Respondent's breach of the BIT. 46 In general, the question of admissibility of claims is one of suitability of the claim for tribunal’s adjudication on the merits.51 On the basis of the dispute settlement clause in Article 11(2) of the BIT and the factual background of the case, Respondent argues that once the choice is made, the same claims are no longer admissible in the other fora.52 Respondent further incorrectly states that the grounds of Xxxxxxxx's lawsuit at Kronian courts and its Request for Arbitration are essentially the same.53 47 Claimant strongly objects Respondent's overreaching interpretation of the dispute resolution clause, as the BIT does not provide anywhere that once the party makes a choice of the fora, it is precluded from all other options provided in Article 11. Claimant will demonstrate that Article 11 does not contain a fork-in-the-road clause, meaning that its application to the Kronian court does not bar Claimant from initiating arbitral proceedings (1). In any case, Xxxxxxxx asserts that even if the Tribunal agrees with Respondent on the existence of the fork- in-the-road clause, Xxxxxxxx's claims are still admissible since the fork-in-the-road mechanism has not been triggered (2). 51 Xxxxxxx, p. 231; Xxxxxxx I, p. 148. 52 Record, p. 13.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
CLAIMANT’S CLAIMS ARE ADMISSIBLE. 48. Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, Xxxxxxxx’s claims are admissible. Respondent alleges that Xxxxxxxx’s claims are inadmissible due to the court proceedings initiated by Claimant before Respondent’s national courts. Respondent asserts that this action triggered the application of a “fork-in-the-road” clause contained in Article 11 BIT. These allegations are unsubstantiated and Tribunal should disregard them.
Sample 1

Related to CLAIMANT’S CLAIMS ARE ADMISSIBLE

  • Claims Review The IRO shall perform the Claims Review annually to cover each of the five Reporting Periods. The IRO shall perform all components of each Claims Review.

  • Claims Review Findings a. Narrative Results.‌‌

  • Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.

  • Claims Review Objective A clear statement of the objective intended to be achieved by the Claims Review.

  • Disputed Claims 4.1 Notwithstanding paragraph 4.5 of this Schedule, payment by the Authority of all or any part of any invoice rendered or other claim for payment by the Contractor shall not signify approval of such invoice/claim. The Authority reserves the right to verify invoices/claims after the date of payment and subsequently to recover any sums which have been overpaid.

  • Contractor Hearing Board 1. If there is evidence that the Contractor may be subject to debarment, the Department will notify the Contractor in writing of the evidence which is the basis for the proposed debarment and will advise the Contractor of the scheduled date for a debarment hearing before the Contractor Hearing Board.

  • Claims Process (1) In order to seek payment from the Settlement Amount, a Class Member must submit a completed Claim Form to the Administrator, in accordance with the provisions of the Plan of Allocation, on or before the Claims Bar Deadline and any Class Member who fails to do so shall not share in any distribution made in accordance with the Plan of Allocation unless the relevant court orders otherwise as provided in section 18.4.

  • Claims Procedure An Executive or Beneficiary (“claimant”) who has not received benefits under this Agreement that he or she believes should be distributed shall make a claim for such benefits as follows:

  • Settlement of Claims The Company’s obligation to make the payments provided for in this Agreement and otherwise to perform its obligations hereunder shall not be affected by any circumstances, including, without limitation, any set-off, counterclaim, recoupment, defense or other right which the Company may have against the Executive or others.

  • Claims Administrator A. The Human Resources Director through his/her designated Claims Administrators shall administer the provision of this policy. The City Physician shall provide the City's Claims Administrators with all available medical information concerning the Employee's injury and/or medical opinions as requested. Medical information and opinions shall be based upon the Employee's medical records and/or physical examination. Questions of Employee eligibility shall be determined by the provisions established under State Statute 49-110, 49-111 and Oklahoma Worker's Compensation Title 85. Prior to any denial of injury leave benefits where lost time actually occurred, the administrator shall notify Union and allow a Union representative the opportunity to review the application pending denial and provide any additional information relating to same as may be necessary. Should the City change designated Claims Administrators Local 176 will be notified in writing.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.