Proceedings are bifurcated to hear most of Mexico’s preliminary objections, but assessment of Salini criteria is joined with the merits

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

Tribunal focuses on likely simplification of proceedings deriving from bifurcation, with consequent savings in terms of time and costs

Multiple preliminary objections require holistic assessment of their potential impact on proceedings when deciding on appropriateness of bifurcation

Mexico raises seven preliminary objections under NAFTA, the UMCA, and the ICSID Convention

Granting party additional time at hearing to address evidence submitted by counter-party prevents infringement of the principle of equality of arms

Party must be able to reply to evidence submitted by counter-party for principle of equality of arms not to be infringed

Objections regarding the relevance and materiality of an expert report relate to the merits of the evidence, not its admissibility

UNCITRAL tribunal has power to exclude evidence from the arbitral record

Respondent’s “reprehensible” attitude towards the claimant on the ground, and its lack of participation in arbitral proceedings, warrant splitting arbitration costs

Arbitral award may qualify as protected investment, but only if it relates to existing investment

Ordinary transaction to acquire goods does not amount to a protected investment, nor do the guarantees associated with it or the goods themselves

Tribunal needs to ensure that is has jurisdiction despite respondent’s non-participation

Background: Claimant lodges ICSID AF case after Tajikistan fails to honour cotton purchase contract and resulting commercial award

Claimant is ordered to bear arbitration costs, plus 40% of Turkey’s legal costs

Claimant has not demonstrated that full protection standard, insofar as it extends beyond physical protection, goes beyond FET

Arbitrators also find no bad faith in actions of TMSF

Appointment of management trustee over investment was proportionate, and investor cannot expect to take specific actions beyond compliance with existing legal framework

Application of new law to old facts is not necessarily retroactive and in breach of legitimate expectations

Legitimate expectations can be derived from general principles of law, and include expectation that investment will be governed by “rule of law”

Transparency is not an independent obligation under FET standard

Claimant was not substantially deprived of control of his shares, considering that he retained many rights, including the possibility to sell the shares

Claimant’s shareholding qualifies as protected investment; experts address consequences of capital increase

TMSF is empowered to exercise governmental authority in the sense of ILC Article 5, but whether contested acts were taken in that capacity is a question for the merits

Tribunal finds that TMSF is not a state organ for the purpose of attribution to the state

Failure to comply with six-months negotiation requirement merely amounts to procedural defect; further negotiations would have been futile

Archives