DOCSLIB.ORG

Uruguay's Counter-Memorial

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Uruguay's Counter-Memorial INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES ITALBA CORPORATION Claimant v. ORIENTAL REPUBLIC OF URUGUAY Respondent ICSID Case No. ARB/16/9 COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE ORIENTAL REPUBLIC OF URUGUAY January 30, 2017 The Spanish version of the Counter-Memorial dated 30 January 2017 is the original version. In the event of a discrepancy between the original text and the English translation, the original Spanish text prevails. Paul S. Reichler Clara E. Brillembourg Constantinos Salonidis Ofilio J. Mayorga Melinda Kuritzky Patricia Cruz Trabanino José Manuel García Rebolledo FOLEY HOAG LLP 1717 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 A. Lack of Jurisdiction..................................................................................................1 B. Lack of Merit ...........................................................................................................5 1. Non-Issuance of a License ...........................................................................7 2. The 2011 Revocations..................................................................................9 3. The 2013 Assignment to Dedicado ............................................................10 4. The TCA’s Judgment .................................................................................11 C. Lack of Damages ...................................................................................................12 II. There Is No Jurisdiction over This Dispute ...................................................................... 17 A. Italba Has Failed to Prove It Is or Has Been the Owner of Trigosul .....................19 B. Italba Has No Right to Enjoy the Benefits of the Treaty between Uruguay and the United States ....................................................................................................25 1. Applicable Legal Standard .........................................................................25 2. The Requirements for Invoking the Denial of Benefits Clause Are Met in This Case ........................................................................................28 a. Italba Has No Substantial Business Activities in the United States ..............................................................................................28 b. Italba Is Controlled by an Italian National, Dr. Alberelli ..............32 C. Italba’s Claims Were Already Time-Barred When Italba Filed Its Notice of Arbitration on February 16, 2016 ..........................................................................34 1. Applicable Legal Standard .........................................................................34 2. Italba’s Claims Were Already Time-Barred ..............................................37 a. URSEC’s Alleged Failure to “Update” Trigosul’s Authorization for Provision of Services ........................................38 b. Revocation of the Frequencies Allocated to Trigosul....................41 c. Allocation of Frequencies to Dedicado..........................................44 i d. Claims Relating to Compliance with the TCA Judgment ..............46 D. Trigosul’s Authorization to Provide Services and Allocation of Frequencies Do Not Qualify as “Investments” under the Treaty ...............................................50 III. Even If the Tribunal Were to Examine the Merits of the Dispute, It Would Not Find Any Breach of Uruguay´s Obligations under the Treaty .................................................. 57 A. Uruguay Did Not Violate Its Obligations with Respect to the Non- Authorization of a New License between 2003 and 2011 .....................................58 1. The 2003 Regulations Did Not Affect Trigosul’s Authorization or Frequency Allocation .................................................................................60 2. URSEC Was Not Required to Grant Trigosul a New License or an “Updated” License .....................................................................................65 3. Uruguay Did Not Treat Trigosul in a Discriminatory Manner nor in a Manner Less Favorable Than Its Competitors ...........................................75 4. Uruguay Did Not Accord Unfair or Inequitable Treatment to Trigosul ....83 5. Uruguay Did Not Breach the Obligation to Provide Full Protection and Security to Trigosul .............................................................................92 B. Uruguay Did Not Breach Its Treaty Obligations When It Revoked Trigosul’s Authorization and Frequency Allocation ...............................................................96 1. The Authorization to Provide Services and the Allocation of Frequencies Were Provisional and Revocable ...........................................97 2. The Revocation Was Made on the Basis of the Efficient Use of the Spectrum and the Public Interest .............................................................100 3. After the TCA’s Judgment, URSEC Offered to Return the Revoked Frequencies to Trigosul............................................................................113 C. Uruguay Did Not Breach the Treaty in Allocating to Dedicado the Frequencies Previously Allocated to Trigosul .....................................................117 1. Uruguay Cannot Expropriate Rights That Do Not Exist .........................117 2. Granting Dedicado’s Request for the Frequencies Was Reasonable Because It Was Not in Like Circumstances Compared to Trigosul ........121 3. The Allocation to Dedicado Did Not Breach the Obligations of Article 5 to Provide Fair and Equitable Treatment or Full Protection and Security .............................................................................................126 ii D. Uruguay Did Not Breach the Treaty by Its Alleged “Failure to Comply” with the Judgment of the Tribunal de lo Contencioso Administrativo (TCA).............128 1. Uruguay’s Actions Following the Judgment Were Reasonable and with the Purpose of Complying with the Judgment .................................130 2. There Was No Expropriation with Respect to the State’s Compliance with the TCA Judgment ...........................................................................136 3. The Was No Breach of the Obligations under Article 5 to Provide Fair and Equitable Treatment or Full Protection and Security ........................140 IV. The Claimant Does Not Have Any Right to Compensation ........................................... 145 A. Uruguay Did Not Cause Any Damages to Trigosul ............................................147 1. Even If It Were Proven That Uruguay Illegally Deprived It of Its Investment, the Claimant Did Not Suffer Damages Because Trigosul Did Not Have Market Value ....................................................................149 a. The Correct Valuation Method: Trigosul Had No Market Value ............................................................................................151 b. The Correct Valuation Date: The Day Before the Alleged Expropriation ...............................................................................156 c. Even Applying the Incorrect Valuation Methodology Proposed by the Claimant, the Fair Market Value of the “Lost” Investment is Zero........................................................................162 2. Trigosul Did Not Lose a Single Business Opportunity Because of Uruguay....................................................................................................175 a. Trigosul Did Not Lose a Single Business Opportunity Because of the Lack of an Updated License ..............................................176 b. Trigosul Did Not Lose a Single Business Opportunity as a Result of the Revocation of Its Frequency Allocation and Its Authorization ...............................................................................180 c. The Lost Profits Calculation by the Claimant’s Damages Expert is Speculative....................................................................186 B. Trigosul Relinquished Its Right to Compensation by Rejecting Uruguay’s Offers to Reinstate Its Frequencies ......................................................................193 C. The Claimant’s Request for Interest Based on Italba’s Cost of Capital or, Alternatively, Uruguay’s Borrowing Rate is Exaggerated and Groundless ........195 iii 1. The Applicable Interest Rate Should Be a Risk-Free Rate ......................195 2. Compound Interest Is Inappropriate in View of the Absence of Special Circumstances .............................................................................200 D. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................203 V. Conclusions and Request for Relief ................................................................................ 204 iv I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a completely fraudulent case. 2. It has been fabricated with forged signatures, falsified documents, unsupported assertions, and lies. There is nothing honest or honorable about it. There is no legitimate dispute here. To the contrary, it is a cynical effort to extort a vast sum of money from Uruguay, including by criminal means, without any justification in law or fact. 3. All of the Claimant’s claims should be rejected. First, there is no jurisdiction. Second, there is no merit to any of its claims. Third, there is no evidence of compensable harm or damages. A. LACK OF JURISDICTION
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uruguay Year 2020
    Uruguay Year 2020 1 SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED Table of Contents Doing Business in Uruguay ____________________________________________ 4 Market Overview ______________________________________________________________ 4 Market Challenges ____________________________________________________________ 5 Market Opportunities __________________________________________________________ 5 Market Entry Strategy _________________________________________________________ 5 Leading Sectors for U.S. Exports and Investment __________________________ 7 IT – Computer Hardware and Telecommunication Equipment ________________________ 7 Renewable Energy ____________________________________________________________ 8 Agricultural Equipment _______________________________________________________ 10 Pharmaceutical and Life Science _______________________________________________ 12 Infrastructure Projects________________________________________________________ 14 Security Equipment __________________________________________________________ 15 Customs, Regulations and Standards ___________________________________ 17 Trade Barriers _______________________________________________________________ 17 Import Tariffs _______________________________________________________________ 17 Import Requirements and Documentation _______________________________________ 17 Labeling and Marking Requirements ____________________________________________ 17 U.S. Export Controls _________________________________________________________ 18 Temporary Entry ____________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and Claimants, V. Respondent. ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7 URUGUAY's REJOINDER on the MERITS 20
    ARBITRATION BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES PHILIP MORRIS BRANDS SÀRL PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A. and ABAL HERMANOS S.A. Claimants, v. ORIENTAL REPUBLIC OF URUGUAY, Respondent. ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7 URUGUAY’S REJOINDER ON THE MERITS 20 September 2015 Paul S. Reichler Ronald E.M. Goodman Lawrence H. Martin Clara E. Brillembourg FOLEY HOAG LLP 1717 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Professor Harold Hongju Koh 87 Ogden Street New Haven, CT 06511 Counsel for the Oriental Republic of Uruguay CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Table of Contents CHAPTER 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2. Uruguay Has the Sovereign Right and Duty To Regulate the Tobacco Industry To Protect Public Health............................................................................9 I. Uruguay Incurs No International Responsibility When It Exercises Its Sovereign Police Powers To Protect Public Health ...............................................11 II. Uruguay’s Decisions About How To Protect Public Health Enjoy a Margin of Appreciation ...........................................................................................................15 III. Uruguay Not Only Has a Right, But Also a Duty, To Regulate Public Health .....22 CHAPTER 3. The SPR Was a Reasonable Exercise of Uruguay’s Sovereign Police Powers to Protect Public Health .........................................................................................29
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    ANALYSIS OF THE ADEQUACY OF PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA PROVIDED IN URUGUAY Final report PREPARED BY : Claire GAYREL and Florence de VILLENFAGNE under the supervision of Prof. dr. Yves POULLET CRID (Research Center in IT and Law), University of Namur (Belgium) AND : Dr. Pablo Palazzi Buenos Aires (Argentina) Report delivered in the framework of contract JLS/2007/C4/003 between CRID and the Directorate General Justice, Freedom and Security. 30 April 2009 With an update on 30 June 2009 Table of content Abbreviations ________________________________________________________6 I. Introduction _____________________________________________________7 A. Aim of the report ____________________________________________________ 7 B. Methodology________________________________________________________ 8 1. General remarks __________________________________________________________8 2. Principal assessment criteria_________________________________________________9 2.1. Legal criteria________________________________________________________9 2.2. Methodological criteria________________________________________________9 II. Context of the data protection regime of Uruguay ____________________11 A. Constitutional system and political regime ______________________________ 11 1. Executive Power_________________________________________________________11 2. Legislative Power________________________________________________________12 3. Judiciary Power _________________________________________________________12 4. Local Government _______________________________________________________13
    [Show full text]
  • The Argentina-Uruguay Border Space: a Geographical Description
    The Argentina-Uruguay Border Space: A Geographical Description El espacio fronterizo argentino-uruguayo: Una descripción geográf ica Alejandro Benedetti Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científ icas y Técnicas / Universidad de Buenos Aires [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper is part of a more extensive research project being carried out at the Institute of Geography of the University of Buenos Aires, whose purposes are 1) to describe and analyze the South American border spaces and 2) to understand what role they play in national territory-building. A geographical description of the Argentina-Uruguay border space will be presented, using a model that considers six components: territorial dif ferentiation, fron- tierization, subnational territory, supranational territory, border places, and mobility. The conclusions will show the main spatial continuities and discontinuities identif ied there. Keywords: 1. border space, 2. delimitation; 3. frontierization, 4. Argentina, 5. Uruguay. RESUMEN Este trabajo forma parte de una investigación más amplia que se está desarrollando en el Instituto de Geografía de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, la cual tiene como propósitos: 1) describir y analizar los espacios fronterizos interestatales sudamericanos, y 2) comprender su función en la construcción de los territorios nacionales. Aquí se presentará una descrip- ción geográf ica del espacio fronterizo argentino-uruguayo, siguiendo un modelo de análisis que considera seis componentes: diferenciación territorial, fronterización, territorios subna- cionales, territorios supranacionales, lugares de frontera y movilidades. En las conclusiones se expondrán las principales continuidades y discontinuidades espaciales allí identif icadas. Palabras clave: 1. espacio fronterizo, 2. delimitación, 3. fronterización, 4. Argentina, 5. Uruguay. Date of receipt: April 23, 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Between the Economy and the Polity in the River Plate: Uruguay 1811-1890
    UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 33 INSTITUTE OF LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES RESEARCH PAPERS Between the Economy and the Polity in the River Plate: Uruguay 1811-1890 Fernando Lopez-Alves BETWEEN THE ECONOMY AND THE POLITY IN THE RIVER PLATE: URUGUAY, 1811-1890 Fernando Lopez-Alves Institute of Latin American Studies 31 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9HA British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0 901145 89 0 ISSN 0957-7947 ® Institute of Latin American Studies University of London, 1993 CONTENTS Introduction 1 I. Uruguayan Democracy and its Interpreters 8 The Exceptional Country Thesis 8 White Europeans in a Land of Recent Settlement 15 Ideas and Political Organisations 17 Structural Factors and Uruguayan Development 20 II. Parties, War and the Military 24 The Artigas Revolution 30 The Guerra Grande and Revoluciones de Partido 35 III. Civilian Rule and the Military 42 IV. Political Institutions, the Fears of the Elite and the Mobilisation of the Rural Poor 53 V. The Weakness of the Conservative Coalition 60 VI. Conclusions 65 Appendix: Presidents of Uruguay, 1830-1907 71 Notes 72 Bibliography 92 Fernando Lopez-Alves is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He was an Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Latin American Studies in 1992-93. Acknowledgments Data for this publication were gathered during two visits to Uruguay (July- October 1987 and May-August 1990). Archival research was greatly facilitated by the personnel of the Biblioteca Nacional of Montevideo, in particular those in the Sala Uruguay.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumer Protection Laws in South America Robert G
    Hastings International and Comparative Law Review Volume 17 Article 2 Number 2 Winter 1994 1-1-1994 Consumer Protection Laws in South America Robert G. Vaughn Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_international_comparative_law_review Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert G. Vaughn, Consumer Protection Laws in South America, 17 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 275 (1994). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol17/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Consumer Protection Laws in South America By Robert G. Vaughn* Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................ 276 II. Background of Consumer Protection Laws in South Am erica ................................................ 278 A. The Civil Code and Consumer Protection........... 279 B. ConstitutionalProvisions ............................ 280 C. The Mexican and Brazilian Consumer Protection Laws ................................................ 281 D. Role of the United Nations Consumer Protection Guidelines .......................................... 283 E. Role of the InternationalConsumer Movement
    [Show full text]
  • Volver a La Cisplatina (1817-1828). Una Aproximación a Los “Estados De Opinión”1 De Los Orientales Sobre La Independencia Del Uruguay
    .............................................................................................................................................................................. Nelson PIERROTTI Universidad de Montevideo (Uruguay) Universidad de la Empresa (Uruguay) [email protected] Volver a la Cisplatina (1817-1828). Una aproximación a los “estados de opinión”1 de los orientales sobre la independencia del Uruguay Resumen: El periodo cisplatino (1817-1828), clave Abstract: The Cisplatin Period (1817-1828), which para entender tanto las circunstancias atípicas is key to understand both the atypical circumstances ISSN: 1510-5024 (papel) - 2301-1629 (en línea) en las que nació el Uruguay así como las luchas where Uruguay was born and the struggle for por el poder en el Río de la Plata, es uno de los power in the Rio de la Plata, is one of the least 17 menos estudiados por la historiografía regional. studied subjects by the regional historiography. In En Uruguay la nutrida polémica que trascendió el Uruguay, the abundant historiographical debates ámbito historiográfico y tuvo variados momentos, se that transcended the field -debates that had enfocó sobre todo en las causas de la independencia many stages- focused especially on the causes of y en la voluntad de los orientales de seguir ese independence and the will of the East to follow this curso histórico. Entre omisiones y oscuridades, historic course. Among omissions and obscurities, los aspectos culturales y sociales que pudieran the cultural aspects that could illuminate a complex iluminar esta compleja y cambiante trama histórica, and changing historical plot were minimized or fueron minimizados u olvidados. Incluso las formas forgotten. Even the ways of thinking and feeling de pensar y sentir de la generación sacudida por of the generation shaken by long years of war largos años de guerra casi no se registran ni en were almost never recorded in history textbooks or los manuales de historia ni en las investigaciones academic research.
    [Show full text]
  • URUGUAY I. Overview of Country Uruguay Is a Republic, with a Civil
    URUGUAY1 I. Overview of Country Uruguay is a republic, with a civil code legal system based on the Napoleonic Code. The capital of Uruguay is Montevideo. Uruguay's official language is Spanish. Uruguay has a democratic government, ranked by Transparency International's Corruption Index in the 21st position.2 The government is divided into three political branches; executive, legislative and judiciary. The chief of the state and head of government is the President. Tabaré Vázquez (Broad Front) is the current President of the country since March 1st 2015. The President is elected for a five year term with no possibility of reelection. The supreme law of Uruguay is the Constitution.3 The constitutionality of laws is determined by the Supreme Court. Right of Association The Constitution sets forth in article 39 the right of association. Article 39 establishes that: "All persons have the right to associate, whatever purpose they pursue, with the sole condition that they do not constitute an illicit association as so declared by law" The country recognizes many different forms of association. In the case of for-profit organizations, the laws recognize corporations, branch offices, limited liability companies, personal companies, economic interest groups, cooperatives and joint ventures. Uruguay also recognizes different forms organizations that might not have a for-profit purpose: civil associations and foundations. Each of these categories will be discussed in further detail below. 1 The following memorandum was prepared by pro bono counsel for the ABA Center for Human Rights. It is intended as background information only and should not be relied upon as legal advice on a particular case.
    [Show full text]
  • On UPM-Uruguay Mega Investment and the Responsibility of Finland To
    On UPM-Uruguay mega investment and the responsibility of Finland to secure and monitor that it respects economic, social and cultural human rights in compliance with the ICESCR obligations Summary preface Uruguay has agreed to invest 4 billion euros - over 7 % of its annual GDP - to such railway, infrastructure, education, etc. which are structured to serve wide scale UPM pulp production and which will not be duly productive or beneficial if another 2,4 billion euros are not invested by the UPM, to build in Uruguay in Paso de los Toros such world's biggest pulp mill, whose productivity Uruguay's 4 billion euros investment is intended to serve. Uruguay and UPM, a transnational corporation, agreed in this their common investment that Uruguay should first build the railway, the port terminal and infrastructure works, as well as introduce changes in education, laws and working conditions of the country to serve the businesses of UPM and only if UPM considered that they were suitable would decide to make its investment. UPM will have thus an enormous leverage to demand more and more from Uruguay to serve just UPM's business interests because the 4 billion euros which Uruguay invested in advance to serve such UPM pulp production it, will remain widely wasted if the UPM does not invest its 2,4 billion euros to the pulp production. Uruguay's Human Rights Institute has determined that the cumulative impacts which this project will have on human rights and environment have not been duly assessed with participation of the affected people and are not duly known for the people of Uruguay.
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9316157 Free trade and independence: The Banda Oriental in the world-system, 1806-1830 Friedman, Jeanne Lynn, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1993 Copyright ©1993 by Friedman, Jeanne Lynn.
    [Show full text]
  • The Qualities of Goods in Sales at the Wholesale Level: Other Answers
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 21 Number 2 Article 3 1-1-1966 The Qualities of Goods in Sales at the Wholesale Level: Other Answers Daniel E. Murray University of Miami School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel E. Murray, The Qualities of Goods in Sales at the Wholesale Level: Other Answers, 21 U. Miami L. Rev. 366 (1966) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol21/iss2/3 This Leading Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE QUALITIES OF GOODS IN SALES AT THE WHOLESALE LEVEL: OTHER ANSWERS DANIEL E. MURRAY* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 366 A. Sales at the W holesale Level ............................................ 366 B. A Glimpse at Choice of Law Problems ................................. 368 II. SALES BY SAMPLE AND DESCRIPTION ......................................... 376 A. The Uniform Commercial Code ........................................ 376 B. The Latin American Commercial Codes ................................ 379 C. The Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods .................. 381 III. SALES ON GUARANTY, ON APPROVAL AND ON: TRIAL ............................ 382 A. The Uniform Commercial Code ........................................ 382 B. The Latin American Commercial Codes ................................ 384 C. The Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods .................... 388 IV. QUALITIES OF FITNESS AND MERCHANTABILITY: DISCLAIMERS, INSPECTION AND LATENT DEFECTS ......................................................... 388 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Montevideo Conference and Creditor Discrimination
    [Vol. 100 A REPORT ON THE MONTEVIDEO CONFERENCE AND CREDITOR DISCRIMINATION By KURT H. NADELMANN ' With the Seventh Inter-American Bar Conference, held recently in Montevideo, another chapter in the long story of discrimination against foreign creditors in Latin America has come to a close. The last act of this story has still to be written, and, as things stand now, the status quo has a good chance of reaching the first centenary of its existence. It all started in 1857 when Eduardo Acevedo of Uruguay and Dalmacio Velez Sarsfield of Argentina included in their draft of a commercial code for the Province of Buenos Aires a provision to the effect that, when bankruptcy is declared within the country and abroad, in the domestic bankruptcy the creditors within the country shall be paid in full before creditors of the foreign bankruptcy may take part in the distributions. The provision became the law of Argentina and passed also into the law of Uruguay, Paraguay, and Peru. The source from which the drafters took the rule is unknown, and it has never been satisfactorily explained why the priority should be limited to concurrent bankruptcies if there was to be priority at all. The provision is still in the codes.' South America can claim the production of the first multipartite agreement on conflict of laws, the treaties of Montevideo of 1889.2 The treaty of 1889 on International Commercial Law includes rules on conflicts in bankruptcy.' Under these rules, drafted by the Uruguayan jurist Gonzalo IRamirez, if assets are in more than one country, local creditors may ask for a local adjudication.
    [Show full text]