Talk:Consolidated Contractors Company

The following text is a copyright violation from Zawya and is being removed.

http://www.zawya.com/cm/profile.cfm/cid1000731/Consolidated%20Contractors%20Company

Business Overview The Consolidated Contractors Company specializes in heavy construction and civil engineering for infrastructure, power and industrial sectors. CCC ranked as the largest contractor in the Middle East in terms of revenues, with a year-on-year increase of 86% to USD4.19 billion in 2006. The company also ranked as the 17th largest in the world in terms of scope, with operations in 44 countries and a workforce of 105,000, as of 2006.

CCC was one of the first construction companies in the Arab world, when it was established in 1952. During the Lebanese civil war, it moved its Lebanon-based headquarters to Greece, where it could maintain easy access to European and Asian markets. CCC generates 80% of its revenues from MENA countries and is one of a few in the region capable of carrying out a turnkey oil and gas construction package worth over USD500 million.

The company aims to double its revenues by 2016 by expanding its project development business and focusing on high-profile construction projects such as the USD900 million Karachaganak gas development project in Kazakhstan and the USD700 million Dubai MallDubai Mall to be developed with Dutco Balfour Beatty and others. The expanding project development unit includes investments in the Yemeni GSM operator SabafonSabafon, as well as the joint venture bidding with Japan's Marubeni Corporation and US-based BTU ventures, for the purchase of a 51% stake in the Central Electricity Company (Ceco)Central Electricity Company (Ceco) in Jordan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.196.198 (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am looking for consensus to add the significant lawsuit won by Mr. Masri against Consolidated Contractors International Company in the amount of $60 million. More details are found below and can be found at hataf.info


This is a significant event in the history of CCC and it needs to be added. What do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.187.105 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please add the following:

Here are some references. I notice that the Times of London is considered a very reliable reference:

Wikipedia's own source for reliable references:

News organizations Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press


http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article3671766.ece

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article3176906.ece

In a long standing feud between Munib Masri and Consolidated Contractors Company that resulted in Mr. Masri winning a $55 million judgment against two of CCC's companies, namely CCIC and CCOG, the British Court of Appeals, on April 4, 2008 has denied an appeal by CCC to avoid the appointment of a court appointed receiver to collect the judgment.

Mr. Masri's dispute with CCC is based on an agreement he had with CCC to collect 10% of oil revenues from an oil consession in Yemen. After the intial court ruling in favor of Mr. Masri, CCIC and CCOG refused to pay the judgment of $55 million. The ruling by the British high courts paves the way for monies from the oil concession that CCOG is collecting to go into an approved court appointed bank.

More information about the lawsuit can be found at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/303.html

{{editprotected}} Please add the following:

In a long standing feud between Munib Masri and Consolidated Contractors Company that resulted in Mr. Masri winning a $55 million judgment against two of CCC's companies, namely CCIC and CCOG, the British Court of Appeals, on April 4, 208 has denied an appeal by CCC to avoid the appointment of a court appointed receiver to collect the judgment.

Mr. Masri's dispute with CCC is based on an agreement he had with CCC to collect 10% of oil revenues from an oil consession in Yemen. After the intial court ruling in favor of Mr. Masri, CCIC and CCOG refused to pay the judgment of $55 million. The ruling by the British high courts paves the way for monies from the oil concession that CCOG is collecting to go into an approved court appointed bank.

More inforamtion about the lawsuit can be found at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/303.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.217.110 (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No references, no verifiability, no consensus. Please find some reliable references for these statements, and consensus for its inclusion in the article. Happy‑melon 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ccc.jpg

Image:Ccc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What is the BLP Policy and where can one read about it?

The BLP policy is at WP:BLP CIreland (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of text while article fully protected

I have edited this page whilst fully protected in order to remove text which is a copyright violation of [1]. Furthermore, this text also appears to me to be in violation of our BLP policy. CIreland (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop...

Stop removing the content regarding CCC's court matters. They are valid about the company are are also found here:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article3176906.ece

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hataf" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hataf (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PER request

{{editprotected}} The following passage must be removed as it is lifted directly from the CCC web page:

The letters CCC represented a little more than the partnership of three ambitious young men. Today these initials embrace the ambitions and welfare of approximately 140,000 employed, composed of more than 60 nationalities

Lifted from facts and statistics under "About Us"... here is the passage from the ccc.gr web site:

From its beginnings in 1952 CCC, has become the largest engineering and construction company in the Middle East. Today CCC embraces the ambitions and welfare of over 140,000 employees composed of over sixty nationalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hataf (talk • contribs)

 Done - copyright violations can also be posted at WP:CV for immediate attention. Happy‑melon 09:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


References

References section contains only one reference to an article titled "Oil sheikhs face threat of prison". Wikipedia user by the name of User:Hataf is repeatedly trying to put this link and text form the article into this page. If we need to put reference to the news articles about CCC why not put some articles returned by Google News: http://news.google.com/news?q=%22consolidated+contractors+company%22

Nicolai Tufar (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to warn sajikhoury as he is constantly vandalising this article

Sajikhoury is constantly vandalising this article.. he is the son of Samer Khoury who is a Director of CCC and they do not want the bad publicity associated with their bank accounts being frozen66.30.196.198 (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Sajik Khoury is anything like people of his name working for CCC in Asia then his in my experience and opinion you are right to distrust them. One of their senior managers of camps and catering also comments on their lack of ethics.--Thaipacific (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)192.58.23.4[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consolidated Contractors Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Consolidated Contractors Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ludowens34 it's clear that you work for CCC. You're breaking wikipedia's rules by deleting the part about CCC's financial issues. Thank you to the community for being vigilant against this type of practice! Ackasse (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CCCNET, same. It's clear that you work for CCC. Your requests go against Wikipedia's policy. Ackasse (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Please remove the "Legal complications" section based on the Reasoning detailed below.

Current text

First text:

Legal complications

In March 2008, Ambatovy Minerals S.A., specializing in the extraction and refining of nickel and cobalt, entered into a contract with CCC for the construction of a 220-kilometer pipeline in Madagascar. This project was part of a large-scale industrial initiative aimed at transporting raw ore extracted from the mountains to the coast for refining. From the outset of the contract's execution, problems arose, necessitating successive amendments to the contract. Despite these adjustments, tensions persisted, leading to an arbitration proceeding in 2012 in Toronto, in accordance with the rules of the International Court of Arbitration.

After more than three years of proceedings, in September 2015, the Court rendered a decision in favor of Ambatovy Minerals S.A., awarding it $25 million compared to only $7 million for CCC, resulting in a net compensation of $18 million in favor of Ambatovy Minerals S.A. CCC contested this decision before the Ontario Court of Appeal, but the appeal was dismissed.

Despite the finality of the decision and Ambatovy Minerals S.A.'s obtaining of an exequatur in Lebanon in 2019, CCC has been reluctant to honor its debt. Numerous attempts at amicable settlement have failed, highlighting CCC's behavior, which seems to disregard not only its contractual commitments but also judicial and arbitral decisions.

This case underscores the challenges in enforcing international arbitral decisions and highlights the behavior of certain companies, which are reluctant to adhere to established rules and fulfill their financial obligations.

Second text:

Please be aware that CCC is attempting to update this page to remove references to its legal and financial position. Thank you to the community for being vigilant to this type of practice, which violates the use of wikipedia.

Proposed change

Delete entirely.

Reasoning

Lack of Neutrality

The section presents a one-sided account by emphasizing alleged inaction without acknowledging self-inflicted delays on the part of Ambatovy. This omission results in an unbalanced portrayal contrary to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

Biased Language

The language used is judgmental and editorializes the dispute by portraying CCC's actions negatively without presenting the full context. This violates the guidelines for neutral and factual presentation.

Omission of Critical Context

The current text fails to note that the parties engaged in lengthy periods of inactivity and amicable discussions, only to later pursue aggressive measures without following proper mandatory legal channels. This essential context is missing, rendering the section misleading.

Verifiability and Undue Weight

The emphasis on CCC's behavior lacks balanced sourcing, giving undue weight to one narrative. This does not align with Wikipedia's verifiability and undue weight policies.

In light of the above, we request that the "Legal complications" and top-level page notice sections be removed to ensure the article reflects a balanced and neutral point of view in compliance with Wikipedia's content guidelines. Billxaidarakis (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see in your reasons for removal arguments to rewrite this content to provide what you think would be a more balanced portrayal, but not actually arguments to remove this section wholesale. That being said, I'm taking a look at the sourcing, and it appears to be a primary source (court filing) and a blog post by a legal firm, neither of which are really the kinds of sources I would like to see backing up this kind of content. The last two paragraphs are unsourced entirely and the last one is clearly inappropriate editorializing. I've removed that last paragraph, going to take a quick look to see if better sourcing for the rest of this exists. Rusalkii (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. We've got this Africa Intelligence article, which unfortunately I can't access but is about the case, this legal review(?), whatever this is, this paper, this article by a law firm, this "comprehensive case note". It's cited relatively briefly in a number of places: [2] [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and many other places. The current state of the article is not ideal, but I am not fully convinced that wholesale deletion is the way to go here. Rusalkii (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some further thoughts: just noticed the edit warring in the history. This content appears to have been added by User:Ackasse who has no contributions other than edit warring about this section, which does not leave me very impressed with it. My current advice: @Billxaidarakis, I recommend proposing a rewrite (not wholesale deletion), relying as much as possible on independent sources (i.e. not from companies involved in the dispute), aiming to present just the facts of the matter as neutrally as possible. Once you've got something written up, please tag me and I will take a look. Rusalkii (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @RusalkiiThanks for your messages. Once i have something to share, I put it directly on the page, or just put it here? Let me know please. Thanks Billxaidarakis (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Put it here so I or another uninvolved editor can review. You should not be editing the page directly. Rusalkii (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disputes
In March 2008, Ambatovy Minerals S.A., specialising in the extraction and refining of nickel and cobalt, entered into a contract with CCC for the construction of a 220-kilometre pipeline in Madagascar. This project was part of a large-scale industrial initiative aimed at transporting raw ore extracted from the mountains to the coast for refining. Various claims and counterclaims among the parties led to an arbitration proceeding in 2012 in Toronto, in accordance with the rules of the International Court of Arbitration.
While the details of the arbitral award remain confidential, CCC initiated annulment proceedings before the relevant Canadian courts. Presently, the parties are engaged in ongoing discussions regarding an amicable resolution of the award.
Discussion on Inclusion
There are several considerations regarding the inclusion of this section:
  • Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a repository for every legal dispute a company may be involved in. Overly detailed legal discussions risk shifting the focus from providing a neutral, encyclopedic overview to engaging in legal debate.
  • Confidentiality and privileged information must be respected. Legal matters often involve sensitive or privileged details that were not intended for public disclosure.
  • Verifiability remains a concern. The current sources primarily relate to public annulment proceedings rather than the private enforcement aspects at the core of the dispute.
  • Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for grievance airing. Allowing detailed legal disputes to be documented in this manner could open the door to biased narratives and the instrumentalisation of Wikipedia as a pressure tool.
  • Limited public interest: Commercial disputes are common in corporate environments, and selectively highlighting one dispute may not provide significant value to the public. Furthermore, concerns have been raised regarding potential edit wars involving interested parties.
Given these considerations, it is respectfully requested that the section be removed to maintain the neutrality and integrity of the article. However, if a mention of the dispute is deemed necessary, the revised draft above seeks to present the facts in a neutral and concise manner.
References:
Billxaidarakis (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Rusalkii I've posted the above last week. I appreciate if you could review.
In addition, I wanted to edit my reply, it seems, I cannot edit. I want to change the titles of the source to the exact titles of the links:
Source 1: [Ambatovy Restructuring Plan Sanctioned]https://southsquare.com/ambatovy-restructuring-plan-sanctioned/
Thank you Billxaidarakis (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking this over, most of your information seems to not actually be in the sources. For instance, where did you get 220km pipeline? The only reference I see to that number in either of the sources in $220 million, for the contract. Where did you get the confidential annulment proceedings? What about the "ongoing discussion"? Please start with the sources, and then, using only information found in the sources, write a summary of the relevant events. Also, for help with references, you may want to take a look at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. Rusalkii (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Per Rusalkii's comments, which should be addressed. GoldRomean (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Consolidated_Contractors_Company