Justifications. ANP undertakes to, whenever it exercises its discretionary power, justify the act pursuant to the Applicable Laws and Regulations and the Best Practices of the Oil Industry.
Justifications. 36.9. The National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels – ANP – undertakes to, whenever it exercises its discretionary power, justify the act pursuant to Applicable Laws and Regulations and the Best Practices of the Oil industry.
Justifications. See general justification. The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. The Respondent believes that the requested documents exist and are in possession custody or control of the Claimants because would have been prepared and kept in the ordinary course of business given the importance attributed to the events surrounding the preparation of the documents.
Justifications. 31.8 The ANP shall be committed, whenever it exercises its discretionary power, justifiably to act, according to the applicable Brazilian legislation, as well as the Best Practices of the Oil Industry.
Justifications. 33.9 ANP commits itself to, whenever it has to perform its discretion, expose the justifications of the act, observing the applicable legislation and following the best practices of the oil industry.
Justifications. At paragraph 55 of the SoC, the Claimants state that “in considering the formation of a telecommunications company, Messrs. Blanco, Nelson, and Sacasa hired the law firm Bello, Gallardo, Bonequi y Xxxxxx, S.C. (“BGBG”), in Mexico City, to [inter alia] develop a clear understanding of the legal and regulatory requirements necessary to undertake the various lines of business that were being considered.” At paragraph 151 the Claimants further state that “[…] Tele Fácil’s founders, together with their legal counsel, continued to keep a close eye on the regulatory reforms, and how those reforms might impact their business.” The Respondent submits that the requested documents are relevant to the case and material to its outcome. The requested documents are needed to determine the impact of the very substantial reform that occurred in the years following the incorporation of Tele Fácil, in particular, the impact over the intended scope of the Claimant’s operations in Mexico (the Claimants contend that their business plan was amended to take advantage of the new business opportunities that the reform offered – see section II.E); the Claimant’s understanding of IFT’s role and powers concerning the resolution of interconnection disputes between operators, such as the one that ensued with Telmex; and the decision to submit the disagreement with Telmex to IFT for resolution in July 2014 shortly after the PEA Declaration. (ICSID Case No. UNCT/17/1) Procedural Order No. 5 The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. The Respondent reasonably believes that the documents exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants as would have been prepared as part of the due diligence prior to their investment in Mexico and in response to the extensive reform of the Telecommunications regulations in Mexico in 2013-2014. Moreover, as stated at ¶¶ 55 and 151 quoted above, the Claimants acknowledge that it was their interest to develop a clear understanding of the legal framework and “to keep a close eye on regulatory reforms”.
Justifications. Xx. Xxxxxx accuses Telmex of misusing the direct interconnection process, but fails to provide any evidence other than a claimant statement with anecdotal information to support his argument.45 In order to assess the validity of Xx Xxxxxx’x argument and how it could affect the claimants, the respondents would like to be provided with the evidence on which Claimants rely to argue that a recurrent practice performed by Telmex to misuse the direct interconnection process. The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. The Respondent believes that the requested documents exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants because they would have been prepared and kept in the ordinary course of Tele Fácil’s business considering Telmex’ relevance in the Mexican telecommunication market.
Justifications. See general justification. Xx. Xxxxxx’x second report cites to various annual reports of Maxcom Telecomunicaciones, S.A.B. de C.V, namely: • Annual Report, 31 December 2014; • Annual Report, 31 December 2015; • Annual Report, 31 December 2016. However, Xx. Xxxxxx did not provide a copy of these reports. The Respondent will observe that, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the IBA Rules (which apply in this case pursuant to PO 1, section 20.3 the expert reports shall contain inter alia: the “Documents on which the Party- Appointed Expert relies that have not already been submitted shall be provided”. Xxxxxx’s reports analysed and used by Xx. Xxxxxx in his second expert report constitutes one of such documents. The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent.
Justifications. See general justification. The Respondent is not in possession of the requested documents. The Respondent believes that the requested Documents exist considering the relevance of the transaction and because they would have been kept in the regular course of business.
Justifications. One of the Claimants’ key factual allegations in this case is that Tele Fácil and Telmex had a binding agreement on interconnection rates. This agreement was allegedly struck when Tele Fácil accepted in mid 2014 Telmex’s initial offer made in August 2013.
