Oxus Gold plc v. Republic of Uzbekistan, the State Committee of Uzbekistan for Geology & Mineral Resources, and Navoi Mining & Metallurgical Kombinat, UNCITRAL, Notice of Arbitration (August 31, 2011)
I. Oxus Gold pIc ("Ox us" or "Claimant") is incorporated in England, the United Kingdom. Since 1996, Oxus and its wholly-owned and controlled subsidiaries Ox us Resources Corporation Limited ("ORC") and Marakand Minerals Limited ("Marakand") (collectively the "Subsidiaries") have engaged in the exploration, acquisition and development of preciouslbase metal properties in Central Asia.
2. In 2001, Oxus was listed on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange. By 2006, in order to ensure the financial viability of its operations in Uzbekistan, Oxus streamlined its operations across Central Asia to focus exclusively on its mining activities in Uzbekistan.
3. Oxus' mining activities in Uzbekistan were carried out by and through its Subsidiaries. As detailed below, as a condition to operate in Uzbekistan, Respondent, the Republic of Uzbekistan (the "Uzbek Government"), required the Subsidiaries to enter into shareholding and other ancillary joint venture agreements with Respondent the State Committee of Uzbekistan for Geology & Mineral Resources ("Goskomgeology") and Respondent Navoi Mining & Metallurgical Kombinat ("NMMK"), both of which are government instrumentalities controlled by the Uzbek Government Additionally, pursuant to Decree 266 entitled "Additional Measures to Organize the Operation of th!: AGF JV," adopted by the Uzbek Cabinet of Ministers ("Cabinet") on July 11,2000 the Uzbek Ministry of Finance obtained certain dividend rights with respect to one of the mining projects in which Oxus retains partial ownership interest.
4. Although OXllS and its Subsidiaries have always adhered to the highest standards of business conduct, they have nevertheless been subjected, commencing in 2004, to ongoing arbitrary conduct by Respondents, in violation of various of Uzbekistan's domestic laws and treaty commitments. Such wrongful conduct has interfered with the management and operations, and impaired the commercial viability, of Oxus and its Subsidiaries by, inter alia, inflicting unexpected revenue loss and unbudgeted compliance costs upon Oxus. Additionally, in response to Oxus' efforts to overcome the arbitrary obstacles imposed by Respondents, the wrongful conduct of Respondents has grown increasingly overt
5. Further, Respondents have deprived Claimant of rights it legitimately relied upon when it agreed to invest in Uzbekistan by, inter alia, unilaterally and arbitrarily modifying laws and regulations that had been specifically implemented for the benefit of Oxus in Uzbekistan, and by failing to compensate Claimant in accordance with applicable law.