FUNDAMENTALS & MODELS OF COMPENSATION VALUATION BASED ON MARKET APPROACH AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN OIL INDUSTRY ARBITRATION

Document Type : ISI

Authors

1 Associate Professor of Private Law group, Faculty of law and political sciences of Allameh Tabataba`i University

2 Assistant Professor of Private Law group, Faculty of law and political sciences of Allameh Tabataba`i University

3 PHD Student of Internationl Oil& Gas contracts Managment of Allameh Tabataba`i University

Abstract

Volatility in Oil industry leads to disputes in investment agreements. Compensation valuation is the most critical factor in resolving disputes. One of the famous compensation valuation is market approach which has pros and cons. Price volatility in share markets, non-comparability of previous transactions and unfair prices are obstacles of resorting to this approach for use in arbitration valuation. Calculating average of prices, ratio normalization and considering differences of companies, are solutions for using this approach which are described in this survey. Normally, market approach price is more than asset-based approach and less than income-based approach. In the Iran oil industry, we can only use ratios and for implementing this method, lots of modifications are required and this makes it difficult to have agreement by tribunal of arbitration for the application of this method.

Keywords

References

الف) فارسی
1. حجازی، احمد (1370). «معیارهای سنجش ارزش اموال مصادره­شدۀ بیگانگان در آراء دیوان داوری دعاوی ایران- ایالات­متحده». فصلنامۀ حقوق بین­المللی، شمارۀ 14 و15 (11)، ص 126-29.
 
ب) خارجی
2. Abdala, Manuel A (2009). “Key Damage Compensation Issues in Oil and Gas International Arbitration Cases”, 24 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 539, pp 540-570.
3. A Bealmear (1999). “Machinery and Equipment Valuation Approaches and Methods”. in T West and J Jones, The Handbook of Business Valuation. New York: Wiley & Sons, 143 et seq, pp 146–7.
4. Brealey.R A; Myers.SC (2006). Corporate Finance. Boston et al: McGraw-Hill, p 62.
5. Brower.C N; Brueschke. J (1998). The Iran–US Claims Tribunal (The Hague et al: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers), p 539.
6. California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, February 21, at Part VI.
7. Damodaran. Aswath (2019). Relative Valuation. Retrieved from: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page
8. German Federal Court (BGH) of 17 January 1973 IV ZR 142/70, DB 1973, 563.
9. Gabehart. S; Brinkley. R (2002). The Business Valuation Book. New York: Amacom, pp 39–40.
10. IVSC (2007). International Valuation Standards concepts’ Fundamental to Generally Accepted Valuation Principles. Londen: IVSC, p32.
11. IVSC (2007). Guidance Note GN 6 on Business Valuation. International Valuation Standards, 8th edn.
12. Kantor, M (2008). Valuation for Arbitration. Wolters Kluwer, Netherland.
13. MU Longxin*; FAN Zifei; XU Anzhu (2018). “Development characteristics, models and strategies for overseas oil and gas fields”. PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT Volume 45, Issue 4, August, pp735–744.
14. Marboe, I (2009). Calculation of Compensation and Damages in International Investment law. International Commercial Arbitration [ICMA].
15. Pratt.s et al (2000). Valuing a Business: The Analysis and Appraisal of Closely Held Companies. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp 224–5.
16. Pellonpää. M; Fitzmaurice. M (1988). “Taking of Property in the Practice of the Iran–US Claims Tribunal”. 19 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 53, p 149.
17. West. T; Jones. J (1999). “The Market Approach Using Public Company Data”. in The Handbook of Business Valuation, New York: Wiley & Sons, 197 et seq.
18. Waelde. T; Sabahi. B (2008). “Compensation, Damages, and Valuation”. in P Muchlinski et al (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Investment Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 1049, 1070–1.
19. White. G (1972). “The Problem of Valuation in the Barcelona Traction Case”. in R Lillich (ed), Valuation of Nationalized Property in International Law, vol 1, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, pp 43, 57.
 
Award
20. American International Group v Iran, 4 Iran–US CTR (1983) 96, 106.
21. Azurix Corp v Argentina, Award of 14 July 2006, ICSID CASE No. ARB/01/12 http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/AzurixAward July2006.pdf⟩.
22. CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic, Final Award on Damages of 14 March 2003, UNCITRAL Arbitration Proceedings.
23. CMS Gas Transmissions Company vThe  of Argentina,ICSID Case No.ARB/01/8, Award of 12 May 2005, (2005) 44 ILM 1205, para 402.
24. Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentine Republic, Award of 22 May 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3 ⟨http://www.investmentclaims.com/ IIC_292_(2007).pdf⟩, para 430.
25. James A Saghi v Iran, 29 Iran–US CTR (1993) 20, para 81.
26. Khosrowshahi v Iran, 30 Iran–US CTR (1994) 76, para 47.
27. LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp, LG&E International Inc v Argentine Republic, Award of 25 July 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1 http://www.investmentclaims.com/IIC_295_(2007).pdf⟩, para 34.
28. Lithgow et al v United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, ECHR Ser A, No 102, para 98, 129.
29. Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co SA v Egypt, Award of 12 April 2002, (2003) ICSID ARB/99/6.
30. Phelps Dodge v Iran, 10 Iran–US CTR (1987) 121, para 1.
31. Reineccius et al v Bank for International Settlements, Award of 22 November 2002, PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION ⟨http://www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC/ BIS/EPA.pdf⟩, para 196.
32. Re Radiology Associates, Inc., 611 A.2d 485, 490, 1991 Del. Ch. LEXIS 234, **10 (Del. Ch. 1991).
33. Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) v Egypt, Award of 20 May 1992, 3 ICSID Reports (1995) 189, para 192. ICSID CASE No. ARB/84/3.
34. Sedco Inc v NIOC, Final Award, 15 Iran–US CTR (1987) 23, para 76.
35. Starrett Housing Corporation v Iran, 16 Iran–US CTR (1987) 112, para 309 et seq.
36. Técnicas Medioambientales SA v Mexico, (2004) 19 ICSID Rev.-FILJ 158.
37. Thomas Earl Payne v Iran, 12 Iran–US CTR (1986) 3.
 
 
Journal Of Researches Energy Law Studies
Volume 6, Issue 2
Autumn & Winter
October 2020
Pages 399-415

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics