中國時報 2010.03.18
全球創舉 英出租海域 投入波浪潮汐發電
實習編譯林力敏／綜合報導
英國政府與民間企業合作，在海洋發電領域乘風破浪，並創下世界新猷。蘇格蘭第一部長塞蒙德十六日宣布，皇家財產局（Crown Estate）將把蘇格蘭東北部朋特蘭灣（Pentland Firth）與奧克尼群島（Orkney）的十處海域租借給七家公司，建造波浪發電廠與潮汐發電廠，而這是全球的創舉，預計到了二○二○年，將可供應七十五萬戶家庭用電。
塞蒙德表示，蘇格蘭周遭海域深具發電潛力，素有「海洋能源的沙烏地阿拉伯」之稱。七家業者將建立六座波浪發電廠、四座潮汐發電廠，兩種類型的裝置容量各六萬瓩，合計十二萬瓩。
英預計二○五○年前，將全國每年溫室氣體排放量減至一九九○年的二○％，要達成此一目標，海洋發電之類的可再生能源將扮演重要角色。蘇格蘭這項計畫不僅能有助於經濟發展與創造工作機會，也向建立低碳社會的目標邁出一大步。
世界自然基金會（ＷＷＦ）蘇格蘭分會主任迪克遜指出，英國的海洋發電技術獨步全球，只要妥善規劃，並不會破壞海洋生態。
潮汐發電起源甚早，利用漲潮退潮間水位的高低差距（潮差）來取得能量，潮差八公尺以上的地區就具備發電的經濟價值。
波浪發電則是利用海浪上下振動的特性，藉由穩定運動機制將其動能轉換成電能。
據聯合國教科文組織（ＵＮＥＳＣＯ）調查，地球海洋能的總量約為七三六億瓩，其中海水溫差能四百億瓩，鹽差能三百億瓩，潮汐和波浪能合佔卅億瓩。台灣四面環海，蘊藏的海洋能源也相當豐富，海洋大學、工研院與台船公司正合作推動開發計畫。
2010年3月18日 星期四
2010年3月5日 星期五
美商控告焦仁和詐欺 提請國賠6000萬美元
【中央社╱洛杉磯5日專電】 2010.03.06 11:43 am
美商EFT公司集團總裁秦杰今天表示，已於去年底對前華達海運董事長焦仁和提出詐欺控告，並質疑中華民國經濟部官員涉嫌官商勾結，因此提出國家賠償請求，金額6000萬美元。
曾擔任海峽交流基金會副董事長的焦仁和與秦杰的投資糾紛起於2008年5月。看好大三通商機，雙方同意由華達海運向新加坡Marinteknik造船公司訂購2艘郵輪，焦仁和並同意，以1500萬美元作為他個人投資華達公司的增資額。
同時，這筆金額直接匯到Marinteknik公司做為訂金。2008年底，秦杰發現焦仁和從未匯款到新加坡，也沒有向公司訂購船隻，指控焦仁和設局詐欺。
對於秦杰的指控，焦仁和多次在台北透過媒體表示，這都是不實指控，他也多次聲明曾經匯款1500萬美元給新加坡造船廠。
秦杰今天在洛杉磯跨海召開記者會表示，焦仁和在擔任華達國際海運公司董事長期間，涉嫌以假股票投資股權，涉嫌詐欺罪並違反公司法，EFT在台投資公司億富地已於去年12月，向台北士林法院提出詐欺控訴，法官也裁定對焦仁和個人財產假扣押。
2月23日，新加坡造船公司董事林蘭英向新加坡高等法院提出一份自白書，坦言從未收到任何第三者的1500萬美元訂金。秦杰表示，這證明了焦仁和所謂曾經匯款「謊言連篇」。
秦杰並表示，已經掌握相當證據，證明當初經濟部在審核華達公司增資案的登記過程嚴重違法，同意讓焦仁和以不實文件變更公司股權。至於層級有多高，秦杰不願明說，僅表示「層級不會太低」，他還透露，握有這名官員親筆寫下的「先登記後補件」的證據。
認定焦仁和的詐欺涉及官商勾結，秦杰透過律師於台北時間今天向經濟部提出國家賠償請求書，請求金額高達6000萬美元。
秦杰表示，他是商人，如果事情能圓滿落幕，他也不希望走到司法途徑。但如果經濟部不願盡快予以回應，他不排除在月中回台灣召開記者會的同時，向法院遞狀控告經濟部違法失職，甚至在美國法院控告台灣政府瀆職。
【2010/03/06 中央社】 @ http://udn.com/
美商EFT公司集團總裁秦杰今天表示，已於去年底對前華達海運董事長焦仁和提出詐欺控告，並質疑中華民國經濟部官員涉嫌官商勾結，因此提出國家賠償請求，金額6000萬美元。
曾擔任海峽交流基金會副董事長的焦仁和與秦杰的投資糾紛起於2008年5月。看好大三通商機，雙方同意由華達海運向新加坡Marinteknik造船公司訂購2艘郵輪，焦仁和並同意，以1500萬美元作為他個人投資華達公司的增資額。
同時，這筆金額直接匯到Marinteknik公司做為訂金。2008年底，秦杰發現焦仁和從未匯款到新加坡，也沒有向公司訂購船隻，指控焦仁和設局詐欺。
對於秦杰的指控，焦仁和多次在台北透過媒體表示，這都是不實指控，他也多次聲明曾經匯款1500萬美元給新加坡造船廠。
秦杰今天在洛杉磯跨海召開記者會表示，焦仁和在擔任華達國際海運公司董事長期間，涉嫌以假股票投資股權，涉嫌詐欺罪並違反公司法，EFT在台投資公司億富地已於去年12月，向台北士林法院提出詐欺控訴，法官也裁定對焦仁和個人財產假扣押。
2月23日，新加坡造船公司董事林蘭英向新加坡高等法院提出一份自白書，坦言從未收到任何第三者的1500萬美元訂金。秦杰表示，這證明了焦仁和所謂曾經匯款「謊言連篇」。
秦杰並表示，已經掌握相當證據，證明當初經濟部在審核華達公司增資案的登記過程嚴重違法，同意讓焦仁和以不實文件變更公司股權。至於層級有多高，秦杰不願明說，僅表示「層級不會太低」，他還透露，握有這名官員親筆寫下的「先登記後補件」的證據。
認定焦仁和的詐欺涉及官商勾結，秦杰透過律師於台北時間今天向經濟部提出國家賠償請求書，請求金額高達6000萬美元。
秦杰表示，他是商人，如果事情能圓滿落幕，他也不希望走到司法途徑。但如果經濟部不願盡快予以回應，他不排除在月中回台灣召開記者會的同時，向法院遞狀控告經濟部違法失職，甚至在美國法院控告台灣政府瀆職。
【2010/03/06 中央社】 @ http://udn.com/
2010年3月4日 星期四
Kessedjian on Arbitration and Brussels I
Posted: 04 Mar 2010 12:20 AM PST
Catherine Kessedjian, who teaches at the European College of Paris (University Paris 2), has published in the last issue of the French Revue de l’arbitrage an article on Arbitration and the Brussels I Regulation (Le Règlement 44/2001 et l’arbitrage).
The English abstract reads:
The arbitration exception in Regulation 44/2001 must not be altered in the future amended Regulation, at least until all questions posed by the relation between an arbitral proceeding and a judicial proceeding have been thoroughly reflected upon. This must be done, notably, bearing in mind the role of Europe as a favoured place of arbitration. In addition, the reform of 44/2001 may not be limited to intra-European cases but also deal with relations to Third States, hence an even more cautious approach to the matter is necessary. In that context, Europe should not act unilaterally, unless efforts are undertaken at a universal level and have failed. With this in mind, this paper discusses the questions which occur in practice.
Catherine Kessedjian, who teaches at the European College of Paris (University Paris 2), has published in the last issue of the French Revue de l’arbitrage an article on Arbitration and the Brussels I Regulation (Le Règlement 44/2001 et l’arbitrage).
The English abstract reads:
The arbitration exception in Regulation 44/2001 must not be altered in the future amended Regulation, at least until all questions posed by the relation between an arbitral proceeding and a judicial proceeding have been thoroughly reflected upon. This must be done, notably, bearing in mind the role of Europe as a favoured place of arbitration. In addition, the reform of 44/2001 may not be limited to intra-European cases but also deal with relations to Third States, hence an even more cautious approach to the matter is necessary. In that context, Europe should not act unilaterally, unless efforts are undertaken at a universal level and have failed. With this in mind, this paper discusses the questions which occur in practice.
2010年3月3日 星期三
Duplicative Foreign Litigation
Parrish on Duplicative Foreign Litigation
Posted: 02 Mar 2010 07:52 PM PST
Austen L. Parrish, who teaches at Southwestern Law School, has published Duplicative Foreign Litigation in the last issue of the George Washington Law Review. The abstract reads:
What should a court do when a lawsuit involving the same parties and the same issues is already pending in the court of another country? With the growth of transnational litigation, the issue of reactive, duplicative proceedings—and the waste inherent in such duplication—becomes a more common problem. The future does not promise change. In a modern, globalized world, litigants are increasingly tempted to forum shop among countries to find courts and law more favorably inclined to them than their opponents.
The federal courts, however, do not yet have a coherent response to the problem. They apply at least three different approaches when deciding whether to stay or dismiss U.S. litigation in the face of a first-filed foreign proceeding. All three approaches, however, are undertheorized, fail to account for the costs of duplicative actions, and uncritically assume that domestic theory applies with equal force in the international context. Relying on domestic abstention principles, courts routinely refuse to stay duplicative actions believing that doing so would constitute an abdication of their “unflagging obligation” to exercise jurisdiction. The academic community in turn has yet to give the issue sustained attention, and a dearth of scholarship addresses the problem.
This Article offers a different way of thinking about the problem of duplicative foreign litigation. After describing the shortcomings of current approaches, it argues that when courts consider stay requests they must account for the breadth of their increasingly extraterritorial jurisdictional assertions. The Article concludes that courts should adopt a modified lis pendens principle and reverse the current presumption. Absent exceptional circumstances, courts should usually stay duplicative litigation so long as the party seeking the stay can establish that the first-filed foreign action has jurisdiction under U.S. jurisdictional principles. This approach—pragmatic in its orientation, yet also more theoretically coherent than current law—would help avoid the wastes inherent in duplicative litigation, and would better serve long-term U.S. interests.
Posted: 02 Mar 2010 07:52 PM PST
Austen L. Parrish, who teaches at Southwestern Law School, has published Duplicative Foreign Litigation in the last issue of the George Washington Law Review. The abstract reads:
What should a court do when a lawsuit involving the same parties and the same issues is already pending in the court of another country? With the growth of transnational litigation, the issue of reactive, duplicative proceedings—and the waste inherent in such duplication—becomes a more common problem. The future does not promise change. In a modern, globalized world, litigants are increasingly tempted to forum shop among countries to find courts and law more favorably inclined to them than their opponents.
The federal courts, however, do not yet have a coherent response to the problem. They apply at least three different approaches when deciding whether to stay or dismiss U.S. litigation in the face of a first-filed foreign proceeding. All three approaches, however, are undertheorized, fail to account for the costs of duplicative actions, and uncritically assume that domestic theory applies with equal force in the international context. Relying on domestic abstention principles, courts routinely refuse to stay duplicative actions believing that doing so would constitute an abdication of their “unflagging obligation” to exercise jurisdiction. The academic community in turn has yet to give the issue sustained attention, and a dearth of scholarship addresses the problem.
This Article offers a different way of thinking about the problem of duplicative foreign litigation. After describing the shortcomings of current approaches, it argues that when courts consider stay requests they must account for the breadth of their increasingly extraterritorial jurisdictional assertions. The Article concludes that courts should adopt a modified lis pendens principle and reverse the current presumption. Absent exceptional circumstances, courts should usually stay duplicative litigation so long as the party seeking the stay can establish that the first-filed foreign action has jurisdiction under U.S. jurisdictional principles. This approach—pragmatic in its orientation, yet also more theoretically coherent than current law—would help avoid the wastes inherent in duplicative litigation, and would better serve long-term U.S. interests.
訂閱：
意見 (Atom)