Claimants to be reimbursed 50% of their reasonable costs, but discrepancy with respondent’s costs weighs heavy on assessment of reasonableness

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.

Mexico’s borrowing costs in USD reflects a commercially reasonable rate for pre- and post-award interest

Claimants’ historical tax liability must be subtracted from award’s amount

Tribunal majority cannot value loss of chance to pursue new projects on the basis of forecasts for projects whose demise was unrelated to the treaty breach

Discount rate factors in risk that regulator may refuse to renew the concession, meaning that forecasted term date should account for such renewal

Mere witness allegations that the claimants would have proceeded with a different approach to their operational costs cannot suffice as a basis to estimate cash flows in but-for scenario

Claimants’ strategic choices in entering the Mexican market did not contribute to the eventual demise of the investment

Planned expansion projects failed because of reasons unrelated to Mexico’s treaty breach

Mexico’s conduct can amount to a treaty breach even if there is no denial of justice by Mexican courts in related decisions

Despite several issues and inconsistent rulings, domestic court proceedings do not amount to denial of justice

Regulator’s decision to revoke investors’ operating permit can only be explained by political considerations, in breach of the FET standard

Judicial economy warrants focusing on alleged breaches of FET standard, which can prima facie be reviewed in line with Mexico’s articulation of that standard

Purely intra-USA transactions do not qualify as investment in Mexico

Mexico’s jurisdictional challenge to projected investment is admissible, despite having been raised after Partial Award on bifurcated jurisdictional issues

Proceedings involve several issues around evidence

Background: Claimants’ attempt to secure their own permit to operate Mexican casinos backfires after change in regulator’s direction

Tribunal finds ‘novel issues of law’ not appropriate for summary dismissal

‘Object and purpose’ and effet utile arguments marshalled in response

PNG insists that domestic statutes provide no consent to arbitration

Claimant insists that summary dismissal not appropriate when facts in dispute

PNG says ICSID Convention only for ‘private foreign investment’

Costs are reserved

Tribunal dismisses inadmissibility objection, seeing no evidence that the claimants had acted as agents of Uzbekistan

Question of consent to ICSID AF Rules is a matter of jurisdiction, unaffected by ICSID Secretary General’s screening powers

Archives