March, 15 2011, 02:14pm EDT
Commerce Group CAFTA Ruling Highlights Threat of Foreign Investor Rules Also Included in Korea FTA
Even as Mining Firm’s Frivolous Challenge of Environmental Policy Is Dismissed on Technicality, El Salvador Must Pay $800,000
WASHINGTON
That El Salvador must pay more than $800,000 in legal fees to defend itself against a frivolous corporate challenge of its environmental laws under the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) provides a glaring example of why having the same provisions in the Korea trade pact now before Congress is so dangerous. In fact, there are nearly $9.1 billion in claims in the 14 known investor-state cases outstanding under NAFTA-style deals. None of them relate to traditional trade concerns; all of them relate to environmental, public health and transportation policy.
The tribunal in this case made clear that Commerce Group Corp. had the right under CAFTA to challenge El Salvador's mining policy. The case was dismissed on a technicality: If Commerce Group had simply written a letter to the Salvadoran judiciary informing it that it was waiving its right to challenge revocation of its environmental permits in Salvadoran courts, then Commerce Group's attack on Salvadoran mining policy would likely be going forward under CAFTA.
Indeed, when El Salvador attempted to recoup its legal costs, the tribunal sided with Commerce Group that its case was not frivolous. The fact that a corporate attack on a sovereign country's domestic environmental policy before a foreign tribunal would even be possible - much less cost a country almost a million dollars when they win the case - highlights what is wrong with our current trade agreement model.
The same outlandish investor rights were in the trade deal George W. Bush signed with Korea that President Barack Obama now wants to push through Congress early this year. If Congress implements the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the hundreds of Korean firms operating here would get new rights to skirt our court system and domestic laws and demand taxpayer compensation before foreign tribunals for U.S. policies that they don't like, just as these mining corporations are doing in El Salvador. In contrast to pacts such as CAFTA, the Korea FTA involves a country that has 270 corporate affiliates established in this country - all of which would be newly empowered to attack our public interest laws before foreign tribunals to demand taxpayer compensation for loss of expected future profits.
These trade pact investor attacks ring an alarm across the political spectrum - from conservatives concerned about sovereignty threats posed by the U.S. government being under the jurisdiction of such foreign tribunals to progressives concerned about the 200-plus Korean affiliates that would be newly empowered to attack domestic environmental or health policies.
The question is: Will we allow this kind of thing to keep happening? These cases reignite the debate about trade pacts' threats to the environment and public health, remind people that Obama promised during his campaign to fix this very problem and shine a spotlight on the same horrible terms in the pending Korea trade deal.
The mining environmental and safety regulatory policies at issue in this CAFTA case was of vital importance to environmental protection and the future of democracy in El Salvador.
BACKGROUND:
El Salvador revoked Commerce Group's environmental permits for its gold mining and milling operations in northeastern El Salvador after it failed an environmental audit in 2006. In April 2010, the Salvadoran Supreme Court ruled that the company had been afforded due process during and after the audit. Commerce Group then sued El Salvador under CAFTA. A tribunal established under the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) dismissed the Commerce Group claim today. El Salvador had to pay more than $800,000 in legal defense fees.
Even as a tribunal dismisses the Commerce Group claim, El Salvador prepares for a second round of hearings on another challenge to the same environmental policies. A tribunal for a separate mining-related investor challenge brought under CAFTA against El Salvador by Canadian-based Pacific Rim Corp. allowed that case to proceed in August 2010. The next phase of the Pacific Rim case - a hearing on jurisdiction - will be held at ICSID March 23-26, 2011.
These cases were brought under extremely controversial CAFTA provisions that grant foreign investors expansive new rights to sue governments in foreign tribunals over regulations or government actions that conflict with the pacts' special rights for foreign investors and that could undermine their expected profits. These terms are included in all three of the George W. Bush-signed-but-unapproved trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and Korea that the Obama administration inherited. The Obama administration did not change a single word of these provisions in its recent supplemental talks on the Korea FTA despite widespread demands to do so from the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures and numerous members of Congress.
There are currently 85 Korean-owned multinational companies with about 270 corporate affiliates in the United States that would be newly empowered under the Korea FTA to challenge U.S. policies in foreign tribunals if the pact goes into effect. There are also hundreds of U.S. firms operating in Korea that could use the same system to attack Korean public interest laws. View a map of these here.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
US State Department Claims It Hasn't Seen Reports of Israel Torturing UNRWA Staff
"The U.S. cut funding to a vital aid agency during a crisis, but isn't up to speed on reports that directly impact that funding?" asked one observer.
Mar 18, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson on Monday attempted to avoid addressing allegations by employees of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees that they were tortured while in Israeli detention by claiming the U.S. State Department has not seen any media reporting on the accusations.
Ryan Grim, The Intercept's Washington, D.C. bureau chief, asked deputy State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel if he believes the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) staff members who say they were tortured by Israeli interrogators into making false confessions about involvement with the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which led the October 7 attacks on Israel. Israeli officials claimed that at least 12 out of UNRWA's 13,000 staff in Gaza had ties to Hamas and October 7.
"The U.S. cut funding to a vital aid agency during a crisis, but isn't up to speed on reports that directly impact that funding?"
"When you originally talked about the allegations against the 12 staff, you have said that UNRWA itself was the one who forwarded those allegations alone. You said you found them credible, but since then UNRWA itself has said that its staff were tortured by Israel in order to get some of those confessions extracted," said Grim. "Does that change your view of the evidence that was presented by Israel, and if UNRWA was credible enough for you believe the allegations the first time, is UNRWA credible enough when they make an allegation of torture against its staff?"
Patel replied, "I've not seen that reporting, Ryan," adding that "we continue to find the allegations that were laid out a number of months ago to be credible."
The U.S. and more than a dozen other nations suspended funding for UNRWA in the wake of the Israeli allegations. In what UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini later called an act of "reverse due process," the agency terminated nine employees in response to Israel's claims, despite admitting to having no evidence to support their firing.
The European Union and nations including Canada, Sweden, and Australia subsequently reinstated funding for UNRWA, which Lazzarini said "is facing a deliberate and concerted campaign to undermine its operations."
The controversy over UNRWA has unfolded as the agency struggles to provide shelter and humanitarian aid to Gazans, who are suffering not only Israeli bombs and bullets but also a genocidal siege and blockade that are exacerbating growing famine in the embattled enclave.
U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) this week called Israeli claims that UNRWA is a Hamas proxy a "flat-out lie."
"If you cut off funding for UNRWA in Gaza entirely, it means more people will starve, more people won't get the medical assistance they need, and so it would be a huge mistake," the senator warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court That 'Let Trump Off the Hook' Allows Insurrection Ban on State Official
"Crucially, this decision reinforces that every decision-making body that has substantively considered the issue has found that January 6th was an insurrection," said the head of one watchdog group.
Mar 18, 2024
Just two weeks after handing former U.S. President Donald Trump a crucial win, the country's Supreme Court on Monday turned down an appeal from the only public official removed from office for participating in the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees and Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife backed the Republican's efforts to overturn his 2020 loss—declined to take the case of Couy Griffin, who was booted off the Otero County Commission by a New Mexico court in 2022, after he was convicted of breaching and occupying Capitol grounds.
In response to a lawsuit brought by the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) on behalf of New Mexico residents, the state's 1st Judicial District Court removed Griffin from his local post under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone who has taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office.
"By refusing to take up this appeal, the Supreme Court keeps in place the finding that January 6th was an insurrection."
CREW also represented Colorado Republican and Independent voters who recently sought to get Trump—facing off against Democratic President Joe Biden in this year's presidential election—off their state's primary ballot, one of several 14th Amendment battles that emerged before the ongoing primaries. In Trump's case, the court determined that states can't ban federal candidates from ballots.
"We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office," reads the majority opinion in Trump v. Anderson. "But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency."
Because of that first line, legal experts stressed, the Griffin denial is actually consistent with the justices' ruling in the Trump case, despite the apparent discrepancy. CREW said Monday that the high court "let Trump off the hook" but the group also welcomed the Griffin decision.
"By refusing to take up this appeal, the Supreme Court keeps in place the finding that January 6th was an insurrection, and ensures that states can still apply the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause to state officials," said CREW president Noah Bookbinder.
"Crucially, this decision reinforces that every decision-making body that has substantively considered the issue has found that January 6th was an insurrection, and Donald Trump engaged in that insurrection," he added. "Now it is up to the states to fulfill their duty under Section 3 to remove from office anyone who broke their oath by participating in the January 6th insurrection."
Griffin said on social media Monday that "I just found out (through the media) that my appeal to the SCOTUS has been denied. Very disappointed. I don't even know what to say. But I thank you for your prayers and for standing with me through this."
Less than an hour later, the Cowboys for Trump co-founder publicly pitched himself as a potential running mate for the presumptive GOP nominee, saying: "Has Donald Trump picked a vice president yet? Would be such an honor to only be considered."
The twice-impeached former president has not yet announced a VP. While Trump has defeated the 14th Amendment effort for now—though a November win could spark another court fight—he faces four ongoing criminal cases, two of which stem from his attempt to overturn the 2020 results. It's not clear if any of those cases will go to trial before the next presidential election.
In a bid to get his federal election interference case—and possibly others—dismissed, Trump is trying to claim presidential immunity. After declining to weigh in early on, the Supreme Court agreed to hear immunity arguments on April 25.
Trump's other election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia has been plagued by controversy involving the district attorney's love life. He also faces a federal case involving classified documents and a New York state case related to hush money.
Also in New York state, Trump, his real estate company, his adult sons, and a former executive were hit with major fines in a civil fraud case last month. His attorneys said in a Monday filing that obtaining a bond for the $464 million judgment—which includes what is owed by Don Jr. and Eric Trump—while he appeals is a "practical impossibility," meaning asset seizure is possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Major Asset Seizure Likely as Trump Can't Afford Bond for NY Fraud Case
"Trump owes this money because he fraudulently misrepresented the value of his assets—and now (oops) apparently no one will accept those assets as collateral."
Mar 18, 2024
Less than a month after New York Attorney General Letitia James said she would be willing to seize former Republican President Donald Trump's assets if he is unable to pay the $464 million required by last month's judgment in his civil fraud case, Trump's lawyers disclosed in court filings Monday that he had failed to secure a bond for the amount.
In the nearly 5,000-page filing, lawyers for Trump said it has proven a "practical impossibility" for Trump to secure a bond from any financial institutions in the state, as "about 30 surety companies" have refused to accept assets including real estate as collateral and have demanded cash and other liquid assets instead.
To get the institutions to agree to cover that $464 million judgment if Trump loses his appeal and fails to pay the state, he would have to pledge more than $550 million as collateral—"a sum he simply does not have," reportedThe New York Times, despite his frequent boasting of his wealth and business prowess.
Trump himself was ordered to pay $454 million; the remainder was demanded from his sons, Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump.
A Times analysis found earlier this month that Trump has only about $350 million in cash.
James has given Trump until March 25 to pay the judgment, which was announced last month as New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron found the former president and his real estate empire, the Trump Organization, had committed "repeated and persistent fraud," including by falsifying financial statements by as much as $2.2 billion.
"It wouldn't surprise me if lenders are refusing real estate as collateral due to his lying about their value," said attorney Blake Allen.
The attorney general said last month that regardless of Trump's difficulty in securing the bond, her office is "prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers" and suggested she would pursue asset seizure.
"I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day," James toldABC News, referring to one of Trump's buildings in New York's Financial District.
James hasn't publicly stated what other Trump assets she would potentially seize from the presumptive Republican presidential candidate.
On Monday, Trump asked an appeals court to issue a stay on the judgment, pausing enforcement while his appeal proceeds, or to accept just $100 million.
In addition to potentially levying and selling Trump's assets, Syracuse University law professor Gregory Germain toldThe Associated Press last month, James' office could "lien his real property, and garnish anyone who owes him money."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular