This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Accordingly, in May 2011, the Von Humboldt Institute issued Resolution No. In 2011, the environmental authority denied Eco Oro’s application for an environmental license for a large-scale mining project in a páramo , adjacent to Red Eagle’s mining titles. Mr. Martínez de Hoz, an arbitrator in this case, dissented.
Accordingly, in May 2011, the Von Humboldt Institute issued Resolution No. As indicated by the Tribunal, during 2010 and 2011, Eco Oro’s application for an environmental license in an adjacent mining zone to Red Eagle’s mining titles was seriously impacted by the Santurbán Páramo ‘s preliminary and temporary delimitation.
1:18-cv-10024 (JLR), 23 May 2024 Lorna Maupilé, King & Spalding LLP, ITA Reporter for the United States of America In 2011, Respondent Offshore Exploration and Production LLC (‘Offshore’) initiated arbitration against Petitioner Ecopetrol S.A.
For example, when we take a whole year of contracts after a transparency reform taking place in May, our estimation may be biased if a procurement regulatory reform happened 5 months later, such as a new reporting threshold introduced.
18] And, for DoD, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) 216.203-4 limits the use of the FAR EPA clauses to DoD contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (presently $250,000 with exceptions), and performance is longer than six months. [19] GAO’s competitive prejudice threshold should be similar.
34(2) of the Commercial Arbitration Act on the ground that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to determine the element of causation required to award Clayton damages on the balance of probabilities standard, which it alleges the tribunal was required to apply. Cargill, Incorporated , 2011 ONCA 622 , 107 O.R. (3d)
The PAP includes other directives and guidance that raise questions regarding equity and balance in the evaluation and negotiation of FSS pricing terms. Open to public comment through November 27, the memo addresses the changes that have occurred in the commercial market since the program launched in 2011. “In
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content