No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
R. N. Pomeroy v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 March 2017
Extract
Claimants, sole owners of capital stock in Pomeroy Corporation (Pomeroy), a Liberian corporation, filed a claim against respondent, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal for amounts allegedly due Pomeroy under a contract for the provision of planning, development and administrative services to the Iranian Navy. Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, contending that claimants could not assert the contract rights of Pomeroy because it was not a national of the United States. In addition, respondent disputed the validity of the contract and, in the alternative, alleged that Pomeroy had breached the contract. Chamber Three rejected the jurisdictional challenge, holding, that since the claimants owned a controlling interest in the corporation, they indirectly owned the claims of the corporation. As U.S. nationals, they were proper parties to assert those claims before the Tribunal. The Chamber also held that a contract existed between the parties and awarded claimants amounts due for services rendered, an estimated amount for lost profits, and interest and costs.
- Type
- Judicial Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1984
References
1 The respondent filed six counterclaims, all of which were dismissed. In view of their disposition, the Chamber noted that it did not have to address the question whether shareholders are liable for the obligations of the corporation.
2 Jahangir Sani, the Iranian-appointed arbitrator, dissented. His dissenting opinion has not yet been issued.
3 See 77 AJIL 642, 643 (1983).
4 Claims Settlement Agreement, Art. VII(2).
5 Respondent asserted that the contract was invalid on the grounds that the official who signed it had no authority, that Pomeroy was not an approved contractor and that no Farsi-language version of the contract was executed.
6 Arts. 247 and 248.
7 Request of June 14, 1983. Under Article 35 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, either arbitrating party, with notice to the other party, may request that the Tribunal give an interpretation of an award. Article 36 allows an arbitrating party to request that the Tribunal correct in the award any errors in computation, any clerical or typographical errors, or any errors of a similar nature. Neither the Claims Settlement Agreement nor the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide a procedure for appeal qr reconsideration of an award. Cf. Henry Morris v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Claim No. 200, Decision of Sept. 16, 1983 (Chamber One); and Claims Settlement Agreement, Art. IV(1) (all decisions and awards of the Tribunal shall be final and binding).
8 On May 31, 1983, Iran filed a request for Full Tribunal consideration of whether interest may be granted on awards. Case No. A/19. Of the 20 arbitrated awards issued by the Tribunal as of Oct. 1, 1983, 18 provide for payment of interest.
9 Article V states: “The Tribunal shall decide all cases on the basis of respect for law, applying such choice of law rules and principles of commercial and international law as the Tribunal determines to be applicable, taking into account relevant usages of the trade, contract provisions and changed circumstances.”
10 The award was paid to claimant on June 23, 1983. As of this writing, the Tribunal has not issued a decision on Iran’s request for reconsideration.