AIM Soiree Butler Rurelec RUR.L

RurelecRurelec PLC was established to develop, own and operate power generation capacity in Latin America. Rurelec is managed by a team with a strong track record in developing power projects worldwide and with considerable experience in the electricity sector in Latin America. Rurelec's main business consists in the ownership and development of power generation facilities on the national grid and in isolated areas, selling electricity on commercial terms. The Company is now a significant power generator in Bolivia and Argentina.

Rurelec is trading below the moving 50 day average and below the moving 200 day average on below-average volume.
Visit the Rurelec website.
Trade Rurelec long or short on margin at ETX Capital.
60 of 854
Overall AIM Rating
What does this mean?
1 of 9
Utilities Rating
What does this mean?
Previous Close
Real time prices at ADVFN
RUR on Twitter
Free 2014 IPO Guide
your ad here
your ad here
your ad here
your ad here

Today's Top 100 Discussed AIM Companies

Click here for RUR Discussion on

Interactive Investor
  • We're forgetting that there's more to this Co by goodflyingduck
    Thu, 24 Apr 2014 22:31:00 GMT

    than just the arbitration award. The sp (from memory) stood at 16p, or more, before the Bolivian Government's robbery. Restitution will award 1.5p per share. That's a difference of 14.5p v the current sp of 7.25p mid point. If there was that worth in the Co before the award, there should be that worth now ! Where is everyone's sense of nationalism, of British Bulldog ferocity, that we take on the might of a sovereign state (Bolivia) and WIN. I've been in bars abroad where the colours and enthusiasm were flying and making one feel proud to be British. Is no one taking account of what this Co has managed to achieve, single-handledly ? Shame on you if your're hedging or shorting this - wherein your sense of patriotism ? GFD By goodflyingduck
  • Re: There is no right of appeal by swooped
    Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:58:00 GMT

    Well ironically the day of default would be Mayday By swooped
  • Re: There is no right of appeal by goodflyingduck
    Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:13:00 GMT

    I don't doubt for a moment that, when they do pay up, they'll scapegoat the recently retired Attorney General but I'm not seeing how he could be framed in such a way as to give Bolivia grounds on which to seek to have the award set aside. I think RUR must brazen it out - they had the courage to litigate against a sovereign state and they should maintain that courage in seeking to ensure that Bolivia meets its dues, If it doesn't, it will be open season for every overseas company operating in Bolivia and, possibly, further afield. The UK gov must stand poised to take appropriate steps swiftly in the event that Bolivia defaults. GFD By goodflyingduck
  • Re: There is no right of appeal by MrNoProfit
    Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:49:00 GMT

    I would say that either the 2nd May or the 5th May will be the 90 day count since those are the working days around the 90th day since the announcement.

    Personally I think Bolivia should quit whilst they are ahead. They clearly won the case in all but title given the amount of compensation they are expected to pay and the lack of awarding costs. I suspect that by having a small award, it has made them feel somewhat emboldened to challenging harder.

    I wonder if they are going to try and claim something against their own man who ran the case for them and who they subsequently sacked. By MrNoProfit
  • There is no right of appeal by goodflyingduck
    Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:14:00 GMT

    Extract from the article reads "Arce anticipated that if the dialogue with Rurelec not have results, then "there are mechanisms and procedures for challenging the arbitration award.". So far as I have been able to establish there is only one way in which the award can be challenged and that is by seeking to have it set aside within 90 days of the date of the award on grounds other than those that would, ordinarily, form the basis of an appeal. Both parties (RUR & Bolivia) agreed to the binding nature of the decision of the Tribunal when they submitted to arbitration ... if Bolivia wants to have the judgement set-aside, they're going to have to come up with some compelling arguments. It beggars belief that there could have been any impropriety on the part of the Tribunal and its members, in respect of whose appointment both RUR and Bolivia had the right to object during the early stages of the process. They are grasping at straws. Roll on 30th April !!!! GFD By goodflyingduck
  • Bolivia still arguing over the amount by MrNoProfit
    Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:40:00 GMT

    Article from LaRazon.


    By MrNoProfit
  • Re: I should have checked but ... by goodflyingduck
    Sun, 20 Apr 2014 22:31:00 GMT

    Truly ? You believe that ? Do you really believe that the voting masses in Bolivia are THAT astute ? They might, for the most part, be able to scribble an "X" in the appropriate box in order to be able to vote, I guess, but they are not so well educated that they can discern truth from fiction. They'll buy whatever is served up to them that appears to make their lot in life better. And if that means seizing other, more wealthy countries assets, they'll be fully on board with that, too. The ONLY thing that's going to work here, at the end of the day, is the threat of international sanctions because of their breach IF they fail to pay-up, which I sincerely do not not believe they will. There's too much at stake for Bolivia in terms of the International "family". GFD By goodflyingduck
  • Re: I should have checked but ... by swooped
    Fri, 18 Apr 2014 11:41:00 GMT

    The reason Rurelec will be talking with the Bolivians is that they will need to agree how the arbitration award will be paid and thus announced. Bolivia hold the money so are in the driving seat for the moment, however they legally have to pay and they will, they will be well aware that if they do not then things can get very embarrassing indeed for them therefore, they have to take the opportunity and advantage to show to their population or should we say voters, that they are doing all to show that they have covered every base before paying up, they will pay up and my guess is very soon, i.e. this month maybe, they will already be able to state to the masses they have won a victory by the fact the claim was for a much larger sum than was awarded. My advice is just stay calm and watch this space, there will be plenty going on in the background. By swooped
  • Re: I should have checked but ... by goodflyingduck
    Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:37:00 GMT

    Yes, the award is binding in the sense that it cannot be appealed but there is a three month period, following the award, during which either party can apply to have the award set aside on account of some irregularity (perhaps, e.g., it being demonstrated that one of the Tribunal's Judges had taken a backhander) ; application would, I guess, have to be made to the Court (ICJ) under whose auspices the Tribunal sits. I've not been able to find any cases of set-aside applications. Like other contributors on this BB, I do find it strange that RUR should be talking with Bolivian Government officials about the implementation of the award .... maybe they're thinking about restoring the assets and paying an agreed amount of compensation to cover loss of profits, dividends and court costs ? That would certainly be a lot cheaper for Bolivia than having to compensate all of the dispossessed co's to the full value of the seized assets. GFD By goodflyingduck
  • Re: I should have checked but ... by Valuespotter
    Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:53:00 GMT

    Where would Bolivia apply to have the award set aside? I thought that the whole idea of arbitration was that both parties agree in advance to accept the result as final. By Valuespotter
  • I should have checked but ... by goodflyingduck
    Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:53:00 GMT

    .... it does not impact the award already made in favour of RUR. The only significance of today's date in the case between Bolivia & Chile is that today is the date by which Bolivia must file its initial pleadings. Chile has until February 2015.

    See link

    And, yes, the end of this month is the date by which Bolivia must either pay up or seek to have the award set aside.

    GFD By goodflyingduck
  • Re: RNS Please RUR !! by MrNoProfit
    Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:59:00 GMT

    Unfortunately Bolivia are playing by the rules. There was no requirement for immediate payment and the PCA has a number of rues and procedures. They can be found at this link:

    From memory (In work so I can't open the docs) I think there is a 90 day finalisation of the award which would take us up to the end of April.

    In terms of news from RUR, there are 3 things that we could do with being updated on.
    * Arbitration
    * Santiago listing
    * Operational update on the plant that was supposed to become operational at the end of Q1.
    By MrNoProfit
  • Re: RNS Please RUR !! by Valuespotter
    Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:50:00 GMT

    Patience...if Bolivia wants to attract foreign investment they must know they have to play by the rules. By Valuespotter
  • RNS Please RUR !! by tonydive.
    Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:27:00 GMT

    5th Feb was the last "update" RNS

    Need to get these shares moving !!!


    Tony By tonydive.
  • Building up nicely ! by goodflyingduck
    Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:07:00 GMT

    No nasty "spikes", just good, solid growth. The occasional day of relatively minor setbacks but the momentum is up. Perhaps the News will break come the 17th, perhaps not, but whether or not it does, it seems to me that it will come sooner or later, for all the reasons enunciated in past posts, and when it does .... !!!!! Roll on that day ! GFD By goodflyingduck
  • Escorter by Rocka999
    Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:57:39 GMT

    Yes that public holiday is stretching a bit, at the time I thought it sounded like a feasible excuse lol
  • Rocka by escorter11
    Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:44:22 GMT

    Yes, I think you're right, I've read more than one report suggesting they're happy to pay us the $'s the other bits and bobs they're quibbling over. Perhaps, when we do get the money, the Santiago listing may come through...That's one hell of a public holiday they're having in Chile!
  • Escorter by Rocka999
    Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:04:29 GMT

    Seizing assets should be a last resort and avoided if possible but we're looking down the barrel of a gun (literally) this might focus the minds in Bolivia into the consequences of their actions in future. Times not up yet so we have to be postive for now. The Birdsong loan is due on 30th April but by my reckoning 90 days from the arbitration award is past this date which seems slightly odd (if I have my dates right). I'm sure there's a contingency in for the loan if the award is not forthcoming and like you say we will know more next week. I've read the details of the judgement again and there's no mention of the dividends? Just the award and the compound interest, maybe it's this bit thats in debate ?
  • Rocka by escorter11
    Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:11:10 GMT

    Seizing of assets sounds great but I wonder what it would do to the SP? I read somewhere that the combined claims against the Bolivian government amounts to 6% of their GDP so it's no wonder they're fighting tooth and nail not to pay RUR the full amount, they probably see it as a test case and what they can get away with in future cases. I would think that if there is any possible way that they can appeal then they most certainly will, again, what will that do to the SP?...and all this with the birdsong loan due to be repaid in six days. Well, whatever happens, good or bad, we will know in the very near future..GLA.
  • RE: Unpaid dividends by spazmodic
    Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:20:58 GMT

    Unpaid dividends are not mentioned in the award section of the arbitration judgement (as far as I can see).
  • Unpaid dividends by Funkygib
    Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:34:04 GMT

    Were these part of the award or sit outside? Can someone please clarify.? Thanks i advance.
  • Escorter by Rocka999
    Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:58:55 GMT

    As I thought, trying every trick in the book to get out of this, hope Peter and RUR stick to their guns, seizing assets still sounds good to me !
  • The translation by escorter11
    Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:37:27 GMT

    is a bit better from this report from Los Tiempos newspaper.. .Ed. Printed THE HAGUE ORDENÓ PAYMENT OF MORE THAN $28.9 MILLION PLUS INTEREST BY NATIONALISATION Hector Arce, attorney general of the State. - Abi Peace Agency | The Government has been negotiating with the company Rurelec to lower the amount of the award that determined the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague by the nationalization of the Empresa Guaracachi SA (EGSA) and if no agreement is reached will contest the fault, explained yesterday the State Attorney General (PGE), Hector Arce Zaconeta. "We are trying, through the path of negotiation, which is recognize obligations that has the company (Rurelec) to lower quantitatively the amount, otherwise we will use the mechanisms ( …) If not (an agreement is reached) there are mechanisms and procedures that allow the challenge to this situation, it is a fact that is in the framework of negotiations," he said. The January 31, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague notified the Bolivian State with an arbitration award that provides for the payment to Rurelec of 28,927,583 dollars, plus interest since May of 2010, by the nationalization of the 50.001 percent of its shares in the Empresa Guaracachi. The former solicitor General of the State, Hugo Montero, said the February 5 that the State has 90 days to take a position in regard to the judgment issued by the Hague and the term runs from the time it was notified on 31 January. "If it is that the company is willing to acknowledge even some pending obligations to lower the amount of the award (arbitration), if it is that this situation should arise, of course, you can open a dialog process for compliance with this award", insisted Arce. Rurelec According, the Bolivian State should pay $35.5 million in compensation, plus 5.5 million by the dividends that did not receive prior to the nationalization of EGSA, coupled with the two figures the amount is about $41 million. After the ruling and before the notice of appeal made by the Government, constitutional lawyers Jose Antonio Rivera and Victor Gutiérrez, said that is binding and cannot be appealed. "The fault is not subject to appeal, are comments ( …) that do not have legally unfounded", then said Gutierrez on the pretensions of the Government. The Maple statements were made after the signing of an interagency cooperation agreement with the minister of transparency, Nardi Suxo, to carry out joint actions to punish acts of corruption. HOW QUALIFIES THIS NEWS? Average Rating - points.
  • They'll pay.... by escorter11
    Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:31:32 GMT

    But only a reduced amount The State Attorney General (PGE) negotiates with the British company Rurelec PLC lower the amount of the arbitration award issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague by the nationalization of their actions in the Empresa Guaracachi SA (EGSA). The holder of the PGE% 2C Hector Arce% 2C reported yesterday that after that award (judgment that dictates a judge) international held meetings with the company to see if you agree to recognize some pending agreements% 2C and this way reduce the amount of compensation provided by the fault% 2C which comes to us 28 % 24 % 2C9 million plus interest. "We are trying to through the path of negotiation to recognize obligations that the company has to lower quantitatively the amount% 2C otherwise we will use the necessary mechanisms" % 2C Arce said. The May 1 2010 % 2C the government nationalized the 50 % 2C001% of the shares held by the American Guaracachi America Inc. (GAI) in the Empresa Guaracachi SA (EGSA). GAI is a subsidiary of the British company Rurelec. Demand. On 24 November 2010 % 2C the State was sued with international arbitration in investment by the aforementioned companies. The January 31 2014 % 2C the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague notified the Bolivian State on the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal to be constituted to settle the claims brought by the GAI and Rurelec PLC. Arce anticipated that if the dialog with Rurelec had no results% 2C then "there are mechanisms and procedures that permit the avoidance of the arbitral award". The February 4 of this year% 2C the then attorney Hugo Montero explained that the Arbitral Tribunal admitted the majority of the jurisdictional objections raised by the Bolivian State% 2C what gender arguments on quantification to reduce by 80% the amount of compensation claimed by Rurelec% 2C which amounted to US 142 % 24 % 2C96 million. "The award (arbitration) is by % 24us 28,927,583 more interests% 2C amount not definitive because Bolivia can still make use of the resources provided for under the UNCITRAL Rules (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) " % 2C said Montero in that opportunity. In August of 2013 % 2C the PGE described as "exorbitant and excessive" the order of Rurelec of which they are compensated with us 142 % 24 % 2C9 million. Montero added that the decision of the Court gender that the value of the shares of Rurelec on the London Stock Exchange lower until in 26 %% 2C "and has a tendency to fall much more". "For this reason% 2C the company turned to the media% 2C based on false data% 2C to save the value of its actions. % 2C assured. Source of the news% 3A The Reason Read news in the newspaper
  • Boliva posturing by spazmodic
    Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:28:02 GMT

    Bolivian press reporting that their Govt is trying to negotiate a lower award with Rurelec backed up with threats to invoke UNCITRAL regulations to put aside the award. Seems to be complete bs from what I can see, and I hope Rurelec stand their ground. Looking at the UNICTRAL rules,


    section "Recourse against the award" page 12.. says Appeal must be within 3 months of award date (so 8 more days to appeal). Can only be for technical reasons, not that they didn't like the result. For example, can appeal because, Didn't receive notice of appointment of arbitrator, that one of the parties (Bolivia) was under some incapacity, etc etc. Interesting there is a section on enforcement. Rurelec can ask the court of arbitration to enforce the award and would expect them to do so after the 90 days is up. Court will then enforce award and reimburse rurelec. So net net, as of May 2nd, Bolivia are dead ducks and Rurelec can petition the arbitration court to enforce the entire payment. Let the negotiations continue and nothing be agreed, in a week this will be over.
  • Petition by Solosphere
    Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:02:32 GMT

    It will be worth your while to read and sign this petition.


  • Today by johngilchrist
    Wed, 23 Apr 2014 05:35:41 GMT

    Is the Bolivian - Chilean hearing day in The Hague. Wonder if someone is going to get sent home sulking? You can't have your International Arbitration rights supported, if evidence suggests that you don't recognise this courts powers. I do hope that this is a very short hearing. The Chilean lawyers probably can't believe their luck. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think today Bolivia might get yet another new Attorney General. Fingers crossed
  • SP by jeddicat
    Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:23:15 GMT

    Well I never! What the hell do the mm's know that we do not? I can not believe this can go any further down, 0.05p down on the first day back after Easter, unbelievable. I really think the BoD's ought to DO something about this!
  • madchick by Rocka999
    Mon, 21 Apr 2014 23:06:53 GMT

    I'm sure the 2 parties are indeed talking regards the payments to be made to RUR, the arbitration decision was final and I'm confident Bolivia will abide by it especially as they have now got their own claim under way against Chile which I don't believe will be a very successful outcome for them. I've earmarked the 3rd May as D-Day which is 90 days on from the award, whether this is correct or not I don't know but it's approaching fast so we haven't got long to wait to find out. I can't recall anything dragging on for so long, at least the interest is stacking up which is a bonus especially if it's compounded annually back to 2010
  • Of interest? by madchick
    Mon, 21 Apr 2014 11:35:06 GMT

    A lot of political waffle and coupled with a bad translation, it's hard to tell what's going on!


    "The EU welcomed the enactment of the Investment Law for days. But now they are asking for a rule governing the resolution of disputes. yet no system is accepted at this time on the resolution of disputes. I think the vast majority of businesses are going very well (Bolivia), but occasionally, something happens that requires resolution of disputes between parties. There are ways to do it between them (employers), but occasionally, you need a legal system to resolve these disputes. For example, this has happened with that nationalizations any company has had to solve their problems at the Court of Arbitration at The Hague, but with the new Constitution, it is not recognized. Bolivia also need a legal context to resolve such disputes. It is important to reassure investors, people doing business in this country. Which is the problem of investors to come? They are coming. European investment continues to grow. The EU is the largest investor in Bolivia with 51% of all foreign direct investment from the EU member states. But it is growing at an enterprise level, with a strong economic power. But what is missing here is the level of investment in small and medium enterprises, which have a lot of creativity, a lot of new technology and with many ideas. That is very important for the economy. So for me, the investment law was very important and all the regulatory environment, its regulations and a law of conciliation and arbitration" So, on the one hand they don't recognise arbitration but on the other hand they see it as very important...?? Of course, they did agree to abide by the arbitration when they set out, so maybe this is to pave the way for their actual payment?? Who knows!