Background: dispute over highway contract

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.

The contract between the claimants and ADM was also a protected investment under the ICSID Convention

Tribunal set out objective criteria to define protected investments under the ICSID Convention

Contract between the claimants and ADM was a protected investment under the BIT

Notion of protected investment must be assessed under both the BIT and the ICSID Convention

ADM’s actions were attributed to Morocco

Arbitrators saw no waiver of ICSID jurisdiction in participation in local proceedings, noting that consent to ICSID jurisdiction “shall prevail”

Claimants complied with negotiation requirements set out in Article 8.2 of the BIT

Negotiation request did not have to be “complete or detailed”

Background: Italian constructors brought ICSID claims against Morocco over unpaid costs incurred in highway construction works

Tribunal held that ICSID Arbitration Rules excluded dual nationals from bringing claims against one of their home states regardless of whether the nationality was real and effective

Tribunal found that individual claimants had acquired host state’s nationality by birth

Background: privatisation of the cotton sector in Egypt under strict governmental control

Claimants were ordered to pay all ICSID costs and half of respondent’s costs

Tribunal determined that domestic and ICSID proceedings were not parallel if brought by different claimants, regardless of whether these claimants were ultimately controlled by the same entity

Tribunal concluded that respondent did not discriminate against claimants as claimants’ company was not in like situation to companies which received settlement payments

Tribunal ruled that ICSID Arbitration Rules allow foreign corporate claimants to bring claims against the host state, even when controlled by nationals of the host state

Arbitrators found no violations of the transparency principle

Costs split evenly; each party bears legal fees

Investor was entitled to assume that its operations were lawful

Paper manufacturing business wiped out by waste paper import ban

Local subsidiary had no track record of profits; liquidation value is already captured by first tribunal’s award, meaning no additional damages

Archives