|


















































|
|
Civil Procedure
Representative Transactions
| |
| Perenco Perú Limited Sucursal del Perú (PERENCO) |
| - |
The Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Jungle (AIDESEP) initiated an action for constitutional protection (“Acción de Amparo”) against our client, through which it was pretended that Perenco stops its hydrocarbon operations in Blocks 69 and 121 granted under a concession agreement signed with the Peruvian Government. AIDESEP argued that there were Indigenous people living in voluntary isolation (PIAV) within the area of the mentioned Blocks and PERENCO’s operations would be a threat to their right to live, health, and others. The Constitutional Court, as a last resort, rejected the suit as invalid, due to lack of evidence about the existence of indigenous populations living in voluntary isolation within these areas (2010).
|
| Río Pativilca S.A. (company member of E. Wong Group) |
| - |
Arbitral Process regarded the enrichment without cause initiated by Jaime Mur Campoverde, and processed through The Arbitration Center of the Lima Chamber of Commerce. The plaintiff requested to The Court of Arbitration order the payment of US$ 6,200,000.00 by Rio Pativilca S. A. as indemnity for a charge obligation which was assumed by Jaime Mur before Banco Wiese Ltdo. (at present Scotiabank Perú). The Court of Arbitration declared inadmissible the suit against Rio Pativilca S.A because this did not comply the requirements needed for this action (in rem verso). Hence, The Court of Arbitration accepted the factual and legal arguments stated by our group (2009).
|
| Shougang Hierro Perú S.A. |
| - |
An action for constitutional protection ("Acción de Amparo") against the Provincial Municipality of Nazca, was initiated by our client in order to obtain the non-application of the Municipal Ordinance N° 006-2007-A/MPN, which approved the Revision of Urban Development Areas in the City of San Juan de Marcona for the period 2006 – 2016, and comprised several mining concessions and other real estate rights owned by our client within the urban area of San Juan de Marcona city. The Constitutional Court declared admissible our suit, and order the non-application of the aforesaid Municipal Ordinance. (2009)
|
| Recaudadora S.A. |
| - |
A contentious-administrative process was initiated against the Fiscal Court in order to obtain the annulment of the Resolution N° 05637-4-2002, which confirmed the compensation established by the Tax Administration Office and obliged Recaudadora S.A. to assume the payment of VAT for alleged collecting account services which represented a total contingency of approximately US$ 2,000,000.00. The Constitutional and Social Courtroom of the Supreme Court accepted our arguments, with regard to the Transfer Agreement of the Past Due Accounts via Assignment of Loans, arranged between Recaudadora S.A. and Banco del Trabajo, was not a collecting account services agreement but an assignment of rights. As a result, The Supreme Court declared inadmissible the appeal presented by the Fiscal Court, and therefore our lawsuit was declared admissible.
|
| Scotiabank Perú S.A.A. |
| - |
Proceeding to rescind a contract was initiated by Corporación Pesquera Ilo S.A.C., in order to obtain the rescission of a leasing agreement signed by a Fishmeal Processing Plant, at present owned by the Scotiabank. The importance of this proceeding lies in the fact that it was one of more than 30 proceedings brought against the Bank for the same reason, arguing that the Bank acted in bad faith and abusing its rights undermining the applicant company and the economic group named “Grupo Liendo”. The Fourth Civil Courtroom revoked the resolution issued in the first instance and declared the complaint inadmissible, arguing that the clauses of the agreement did not infringe any legal rule in force for this type of agreements, therefore the Bank may have not abused any right or acted in bad faith. When a cassation appeal was brought by the plaintiff, the Civil Courtroom of the Supreme Court declared it inadmissible (2009).
|
|
|