I’m not sure I’ve heard about anything much dumber than the provision in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, leaked today, to allow foreign companies to recover for U. S. actions that hurt foreign companies’ investment expectations. Suing for actual damages I can see. But investment expectations?
I’m not sure ‘bonehead’ is the right descriptor. That sounds fishy as Hell, and I’d like to know how that came about. That sounds crooked.
And they get to sue in extrajudicial tribunals staffed by rotating corporate lawyers. I can’t imagine how this could possibly go wrong.
I’m setting up a foreign company to make investments in the US. I’m so damned good at investment my expectation is that all mine will make between 3-8 x cash on cash. Any result outside the range will most assuredly be due to US actions.
I’m taking on LP’s for anyone interested…..
Exactly. What could possibly go wrong?
I just read the entire synopsis in the link again. My god. An attempt to encourage investment? Secret proceedings? Tribunals over sovereign law?
This is either a) a beer and pizza induced dorm room bull session product or b) one of the most execrable attempts to fleece taxpayers to centrally manage an economy and hand out favors I’ve ever heard of.
You can’t make this shit up.
Well … Let me make up an example. Suppose you’re Burmese Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. a fairly legitimate company thinking of expanding in the USA. So you look about and decide some place outside of Savannah, Georgia is ideal for your purposes — low taxes, available workforce, reasonable local markets, etc. etc. You buy some land and announce your plans.
So far, so good. But the Georgia legislature decides your plant will be a drain on the local water supply and will overload local sanitary facilities, so they pass a law that says new companies setting up in Georgia have to foot the bill for environmental impacts. Naturally, there are grandfather clauses to protect old established Georgia companies from similar charges on new plants they may be building. And there are exemptions for “small” companies, and for woman-owned companies. And exemptions for defense plants.
And so on. Let’s boil this down: Nobody is really getting hit with these environmental costs but BP. In fact, the Georgia legislature is delighted to have BP spend billions on a shiny new production facility in their state, and they hope it makes lot of money. But they’re going to bleed it a bit too. Because they can, and because it will please the voters, and because they ought to be doing something about the environment anyhow, and they think BP’s investors will just sigh and accept the extra costs.
BP thinks, not without reason, that it’s being screwed. So what redress does it have? (1) stop construction and sell the site to the first bidder? (2) file a law suit in Georgia courts asking for equal treatment? (3) Complain to the US State Department? or (4) file suit in an international court?
(4) looks like the best answer to me. Is there any part of this made up example that seems totally implausible?
Let me make an analogous example. You’re a German citizen working for a U. S. company in the U. S. You think you’re going to get a promotion. You buy a new car in anticipation of the promotion. Should you be able to sue your employer in a German court? Of course not.
There are multiple issues here including being able to sue for expectations and the proper forum in which to seek a remedy.
Also, it seems to me pretty likely that a U. S. court would find that the Georgia law in your example was an illegal bill of attainder.