Silence in treaty cannot be interpreted as a bar to multi-party proceedings

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.

Mr. Clodfelter would have dismissed fork-in-the-road objection based on a “fundamental basis” test

Differences in prayers for relief and causes of action between domestic and international proceedings indicate that the same dispute has not been brought before two different

BIT contains fork-in-the-road clause, whose purpose is to prevent investors from having two bites of the cherry

According to Mr. Clodfelter, circular investments are not covered by BIT

No abuse or fraud in using foreign companies to hold interests in domestic companies

Prohibition of round-trip investments would amount to unduly adding jurisdictional requirement to the treaty, tribunal finds

While abuse would justify refusing to rule on the claims, the tribunal see no abuse in 2014 reorganisation

No abuse in restructuring, since investments were already protected by treaty

Claimants had no “permanent seat” in Cyprus at time of breach, dissenter says

Dissenter considers that majority’s interpretation lacks

“Permanent seat” requires more than registration, but claimants meet the test

BIT’s negotiating material undermines the state’s interpretation of “permanent seat”, majority holds

Effet utile principle backs the claimants’ contention that “permanent seat” refers to genuineness of seat in home state

Terms “permanent seat” should be given an autonomous meaning under international law

Proceedings are partly bifurcated, as one objection is tied to the merits, while another one would benefit from waiting for development on intra-EU stage

Background: Group of companies active in Czechia’s gambling sector lodges treaty arbitration

Background: claimant’s natural gas liquefaction plant is insufficiently supplied

Late corruption allegations may have had “tactical purpose”

Claimant can claim for closely-held company

Red flags and unanswered queries do not suffice to prove corruption, majority says

Corruption claims only need a “balance of probabilities”

Costs go the claimant’s way

No force majeure to excuse Egypt’s conduct “lacking good faith”

Revocation of tax-free zone is not a breach

Archives