Background: Claimants initiate arbitration over incentives cut for their photovoltaic power plants

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.

Most costs are split, but claimants are directed to bear costs related to their backdoor rectification request

While the respondent’s request entails complex calculations, the case’s specific circumstances require the tribunal to rectify its error

Scope of rectification proceedings is narrow

Subject-matters of the parties’ requests are different

Tribunal only has jurisdiction to rectify the interest calculation error identified by the respondent

Tribunal decides to strike out a portion of the claimants’ response, finding that it was not responsive to the respondent’s request and thus untimely

Claimants respond to South Korea’s rectification request by asking the tribunal to “completely” rectify the error in question – alleging that this would result in additional damages

Delay in receiving local rulings means domestic remedies have been exhausted

Treaty applies to pre-existing investments and disputes, given silence on this point

No abuse of process in seeking international ruling while local proceedings are afoot

Tribunal will hear claims for breach of customary international law

Lack of compensation renders the expropriation unlawful

Majority says access to arbitration is form of protection covered by MFN clause

In the absence of a legal dispute, the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Since the claimants had objected to the discontinuance, the tribunal decided to issue an award – rather than discontinue the proceedings through a procedural order

Tribunal ruled that the parties had concluded a binding settlement agreement

Settlement agreement could be concluded via e-mail under English law

Parties agree that interpretation of e-mail agreement is governed by English law

Background: Claimants’ witness acknowledged payment of bribes during the hearing; counsel discussed joint settlement agreement in email exchange

Judge Brower dissents on MFN application

Arbitrators diverge on interpretation of Spain-Russia BIT MFN provision

Tribunal rejects view that MFN clauses apply to arbitration only where explicit

Tax carve-out is side-stepped given claims of abuse of tax power

Parties’ intentions and object and purpose of BIT invites broad reading of narrow jurisdiction clause

Archives