Swedish Company Uses Corporate Sovereignty Clause To Demand 4.7 Billion Euros From German Public

from the are-you-sure-that's-enough? dept

A couple of months ago we mentioned the long-running legal battle involving the Swedish energy company, Vattenfall, which is suing Germany using corporate sovereignty provisions in the Energy Charter Treaty after the German state decided to phase out nuclear power stations. The rumored figure we mentioned then was the already-generous €3.7 billion; but it has just been revealed that Vattenfall is actually demanding even more — €4.7 billion, to be precise. We know this is the real figure, because it was mentioned by Germany’s Minister of the Economy, Sigmar Gabriel (original in German.)

This fact may help to explain persistent reports that Germany will not agree to the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) chapter in either TAFTA/TTIP or CETA (the Canada-EU trade agreement). Germany is already experiencing first-hand the dangers of such corporate sovereignty provisions, and clearly wants to avoid suffering any more on this front.

The latest information, reported by the German news magazine Der Spiegel, points out that two other energy companies, RWE and E.on, are unable to sue in the same way as Vattenfall, because they are German companies, and the ISDS option is only available to foreign investors. This underlines the fact that, far from creating a level playing-field, corporate sovereignty is biased against local companies. For this reason, RWE and E.on are also trying to sue in Germany’s national courts in order to obtain compensation, as Vattenfall is doing with the ISDS tribunals; whether they can depends on a ruling from Germany’s constitutional court, due early next year. Interestingly, Vattenfall is also suing the German government through these courts — which shows how ISDS gives foreign investors extra ways of claiming compensation.

Finally, the Der Spiegel article points out that the original estimate of the potential costs to the German government (and thus to the German taxpayer, who has to pick up the bill) from the action in the national courts, which were put at between €15 billion to €20 billion, are probably too high. That’s because the price offered for supplying electricity has now dropped, bringing down potential profits too. That demonstrates the danger of granting corporate sovereignty tribunals unchecked power to make awards in favor of companies based purely on the latter’s probably exaggerated claims about uncertain “losses” far into the future.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: vattenfall

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Swedish Company Uses Corporate Sovereignty Clause To Demand 4.7 Billion Euros From German Public”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

The people of the world need to unite and stand up to large companies and tell them they do not have the rights to guaranteed income.

Companies should never be “too big to fail” in which the public needs to bail them out, nor should they ever be able to sue sovereign countries for imaginary lost income due to laws and regulations.

If corporations want to be people, then they’re not immune to getting screwed like people (usually like the people they’re screwing themselves) and left to die like people when they’ve reached the end of their life.

David says:

Re: Re:

Wishful thinking. You have been assimilated by the Corp. Resistance is futile. All your leaders have Corp blood running through their assets. If it walks like a green-billed platitude, and talks like a green-billed platitude, why, it is a green-billed platitude! Don’t confuse them with warm-blooded individuals.

art guerrilla (profile) says:

Re: Right for expected future profits?

i’m with you on this one, bro: future profits ? ? ?
um, depending on your time line, future profits = ZERO
since when have ‘profits’ been GUARANTEED ? ? ?
ISN’T that supposed to be the WHOLE POINT of so-called ‘free market capitalism’ ? ? ?

SOME one, ANY one makes a cheaper widget, offers a better service, provides a comprehensive solution for your wants/needs, and you go with them, and we call that ‘competition’ and the audience claps…

ain’t that the way it is supposed to work ? ? ?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Does that company have an army?

Wait, I got this. Viking raiders pillage all up and down the Elbe until they approach Berlin, at which point Angela Merkel forks over 4.7 billion Euros of Danegeld.

As horrible as some of these trade agreements are, we should at least be grateful we don’t live in the seventh century.

Anonymous Coward says:

and the ISDS is still wanted in the various deals, such as TTIP and TAFTA. is it any wonder? companies can force payments from countries and actually put them in the bankrupted club, as well as making a company mega rich! this is an awful inclusion in any deal and needs to be removed for good! just think of the consequences. a country that has been on the verge of bankruptcy could be thrown a ‘lifeline’ in the form of ‘we want to be able to spy on every one of your citizens and companies. we want to be able to ……………’ the demands could be endless and possibly worse than the bankruptcy.
i hope Germany fights this and gets other countries to back it too!

Merijn says:

Read and think critically before you post

No where in this article does it say Vattenfall is sueing the government because they need to be bailed or, does it imply the German government is bailing them out.

Vattenfall is sueing for the destruction of value in their assets by the German governments decision to abandon nuclear power. Vattenfall still has to pay for the dismanteling of their plants, replacment of generational capacity and quite possibly unwinding of their hedges (e.g. they probably sold a large chunk of their expected output on the futures market).

Before you post, think critically.. all this hippy nonesense about companies being to big to fail.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Read and think critically before you post

Vattenfall is sueing for the destruction of value in their assets by the German governments decision to abandon nuclear power.

And? What’s the alternative, locking in a previous decision by a government because to do otherwise would ‘destroy the value’ of a company’s assets in an area?

The government previously had decided one way on nuclear power, and Vattenfall acted accordingly. Now the government has changed their mind, and it’s up to Vattenfall to deal with that, not try and sue to recoup ‘lost’ profits and ‘worth’.

You don’t always come out ahead in business, that’s kinda how it works. To attempt to force the german people to pay back what the company spent is basically trying to turn it into a win-win situation for the company, where no matter what happens they don’t lose money on a given venture.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Read and think critically before you post

“Vattenfall still has to pay for the dismanteling of their plants, replacment of generational capacity and quite possibly unwinding of their hedges “

Awwww, isn’t that sad. I know, let’s all pitch in and help them out – not.

It’s not like this or any other corporation is going out iof their way to help those in need, so to hell with them. They made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. I’m sorry, but that is capitalism at its finest, they should have read the contract and tough shit ……

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Read and think critically before you post

I am not fond of large corporations but I bet there was a multi year contract with the government about how much and how long they would be generating power. If the government cancelled then the need to pay for breaking the contact. Otherwise how could you even trust the government with any contract if they can break them and not pay the consequences.

Anonymous Coward says:

…Vattenfall still has to pay for the dismanteling of their plants…

There are businesses that have been around over 100 years. A nuclear power generating plant will not be one of them. A nuclear power generating plant will have a finite life span. Anybody building such a plant should know about that before spending their money.

dungeonlight says:

There will be more cases like that in the future...

if CETA will be adopted instead of rejected.

The second point is:
ISDS is not the only mechanism wiping democracy away.
There is also “regulatory council” and “stillstand clause”.

And I’m sure that they are not only part of TTIP, but also CETA and TPP. Don’t forget them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Investor State Idiotic Strategy, or ISIS for short, is causing much consternation and anguish across the globe. These freaks think they can run roughshod upon the backs of their victims, Gangnam Style while laughing it up on ill gotten gains. Well, nothing lasts forever and when the shit hits the fan it tends to go everywhere, umbrellas don’t help much.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...