Corona Materials, a U.S. mining company, claimed that the Dominican Republic violated CAFTA by delaying and then denying environmental approval for an aggregate materials mine. In deeming the mine "not environmentally feasible," the government cited concern for the prospective impact on nearby water sources. Corona argues that the denial of environmental approval for the mine violated the company's CAFTA-protected rights to a minimum standard of treatment and national treatment, and constituted a CAFTA-prohibited expropriation of its investment. Pending, asking $100 Million
Three individuals of dual U.S.-Dominican Republic nationality threatened to launch a CAFTA claim against the Dominican Republic for denying environmental approval for their plans to expand a gated resort. In its decision to not authorize the development expansion, the Ministry of Environment explained that the land in question fell within the bounds of a protected national park. The developers allege that the government drew the park's boundaries in a discriminatory manner. They claim violations of CAFTA's national treatment, most favored nation, minimum standard of treatment, and expropriation obligations. Pending, asking $20 Million
Pacific Rim Mining Corp., a Canadian-based corporation that sought to establish a massive gold mine using water-intensive cyanide ore processing in El Salvador, claimed that the government violated CAFTA by not issuing a permit for the mine. This proposed project, to be located in the basin of El Salvador's largest river, as well as applications filed by various companies for 28 other gold and silver mines, generated a major national debate about the health and environmental implications of mining in El Salvador, a densely populated country with limited water resources.35 Leaders of El Salvador's major political parties, the Catholic Church and a large civil society network expressed concerns.
In April 2008, one month after El Salvador's president announced that he would not grant mining permits until the legislature undertook an in-depth environmental study of the proposed mining projects, a new U.S.-based Pacific Rim subsidiary sent a letter to the Salvadoran government to threaten a CAFTA claim.37 The corporation had incorporated the subsidiary -- Pac Rim Cayman LLC -- just five months earlier.38 Pacific Rim never completed the feasibility study necessary to obtain an exploitation permit for its mine and in July 2008 ceased exploratory drilling.39 Later that year, the company launched its CAFTA challenge, claiming that the Salvadoran government's decision to not grant the mining permit violated CAFTA's rules on expropriation and national treatment, among others.40
In a CAFTA tribunal's 2012 jurisdictional ruling, El Salvador lost on three out of four counts. The tribunal allowed Pac Rim to continue pursuing its claims at the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) under a domestic investment law with provisions similar to CAFTA. Pending, asking $200 Million
The Renco Group, a corporation owned by Ira Rennert, one of the wealthiest people in the United States, claimed that the Peruvian government violated the U.S.-Peru FTA by not granting the company an extension on its overdue commitment to clean up environmental contamination. Doe Run Peru, Renco's Peruvian subsidiary, failed to meet its environmental clean-up commitments under the terms of a 1997 privatization of one of the world's most polluted sites: a metal smelter in La Oroya, Peru. The Peruvian government granted two extensions of the 2007 date by which Doe Run was to have built a sulfur oxide treatment facility -- a commitment that the corporation repeatedly failed to fulfill. In 2007 and 2008, Doe Run was challenged in class action lawsuits in Missouri courts, claiming damages to children for toxic emissions from the smelter since its acquisition by Renco .52 In 2010, the company launched an $800 million investor-state claim against Peru under the FTA. The company claimed a violation of fair and equitable treatment, blamed Peru for not granting a third extension to comply with its unfulfilled 1997 environmental commitments, and stated that Peru, not Renco, should have assumed liability for the Missouri cases.
Some analysts believe that Renco is using the investor-state claim to derail the Missouri-based lawsuit seeking compensation for La Oroya's children. Renco had previously tried three times to remove the case to federal court from the Missouri courts, where the jury pool was likely to be skeptical of the company after its highly publicized pollution in Missouri. Renco had failed each time. But one week after launching its investor-state claim, Renco tried a fourth time to remove the case to federal courts and succeeded. The same judge that had denied the previous requests now granted it, citing the FTA claim as the reason. Pending, asking $800 Million
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
7
4
3
