ICA the intra consortium agreement signed between the Participants allocating the rights and obligations inter se in respect of carrying out of the Project. The ICA is attached to this Grant Agreement as Annex 3;
ICA. The Purchaser either is not a “non-Canadian” within the meaning of the ICA or, if the Purchaser is a “non-Canadian”, the Purchaser is a “WTO investor” within the meaning of the ICA.
ICA. The Purchaser is a “non-Canadian” within the meaning of section 3 of the ICA, and a “WTO investor” within Section 14.1(6) of the ICA.
ICA. The Company or any of its Subsidiaries does not engage in, or provide any services related to, any of the activities specified in subsection 14.1(5) of the ICA.
ICA. Industry Canada shall have advised that the investment is not reviewable under the ICA or, the time periods specified in the ICA for notification of review shall have elapsed without notice from Industry Canada.
ICA. The value of the Acquired Assets, determined in accordance with the Investment Canada Act and the Investment Canada Regulations (collectively, the "ICA"), does not exceed Cdn $237 million. The Business does not provide any "transportation service" (as that term is defined in the ICA).
ICA. These decisions don’t radically deviate from previous ICA case law but do highlight that the Courts are more likely to give the wording of the ICA its natural meaning and underline the rationale of the ICA and it’s more mechanical and simple approach to apportionment. LinksInter-Club Agreement (as amended 1 September 2011)Transgrain Shipping v Yangtze Navigation [2017] EWCA Civ 2107(“Yangzte Xxxx Xxx”)Agile Holdings v Essar Shipping [2018] EWHC 1055 (Comm) + Whether the ICA 2011 had been incorporated in full into charterparty so as to require charterers to provide counter-security London Arbitration 18/18 (2018) 1010 LMLN 2 Facts The vessel was chartered by the claimant disponent owners (“the owners”) to the respondent charterers on an NYPE 1946 form with additional clauses. A cargo claim was raised against the head owners for alleged damage amounting to US$900,000. Following the threat of the vessel being arrested, the head owners’ P&I Club provided the cargo insurers with security of US$900,000 in the form of a letter of undertaking (XXX), and demanded security for the same from the owners, which was duly provided. The owners took the view that the head owners were entitled to counter-security pursuant to their rights under the Interclub NYPE Agreement 2011 (ICA 2011) which they believed was incorporated into their charterparty. The charterparties between the head owners and the owners and the charterers were essentially on back-to-back terms. However the charterers’ P&I Club refused to provide counter-security to the owners. The owners brought arbitration proceedings against the charterers and applied, under section 48(5)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996, for an immediate order for specific performance from the charterers for the provision of counter-security in the form of a Club XXX, or a suitably worded guarantee from a first class London bank, alternatively, the placement of the demanded security amount into escrow with the owners’ P&I insurer. The charterers opposed the application and denied that they were obliged to provide counter-security under the terms of the charterparty or ICA 2011. They said that the words used in clause 35 of the charterparty were not suitable or appropriate to incorporate into the charterparty the terms of ICA 2011or the provisions regarding security. The Tribunal's Award The charterparty included at clause 35 the following sentence providing that “… liability for cargo claims, as between Charterers and Owners, shall be ap...
