Majority’s reasoning on the merits met requirement to state reasons; Spain’s cavils merely touched upon content and approach of arbitrators

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’s applicable law decision does not indicate failure to state reasons

Requirement to state reasons is designed to allow the parties – which know the case through and through – to understand the award

No manifest excess of powers in finding that EU law does not apply to the dispute; Spain’s arguments about primacy of EU law are hard to square with multilateral nature of ECT

Spain’s cavil about interpretation of ECT does not go beyond disagreement with arbitration’s outcome

Tribunal’s refusal to apply Achmea jurisprudence to ECT case is not a manifest excess of powers

Manifest excess of powers standard can only be met if the tribunal erred egregiously

Annulment committees are concerned with legitimacy of arbitral process, rather than substantive correctness

Committee keeps tight lid on the record, as proceedings should not go further than original arbitral record

Committee does not dispense with hearing, given lack of agreement by the parties

Interest does compensate for “delay in recovery”

Clash with EU law obligations is a matter for the merits – and therefore not a circumstance that could justify a continued stay

Sale of shares in award-creditor to third party is insufficient to establish risk of non-recoupment

Stays should only be continued in “special or particular circumstances”

Despite risks that claimants be at the end of the line of creditors, Committee declines to order security for award

Whether stay is detrimental to claimant depends on risk that Spain does not comply with the award

European Commission’s authorisation to honour the award evidences risk of no-payment

Little practical difference in who bears burden of proof when both parties opined on the issue

Good faith of annulment application is irrelevant

Spain failed to establish real risk of non-recoupment

Alleged conflict of obligations unaffected by lifting the stay

Committee finds that legal standard does not rise beyond the ordinary

International law and Venezuelan law are both relevant

Parties are ordered to bear their own costs

Guaido government opposes enforcement of Valores Mundiales award in US court, arguing that the committee’s representation decision violated its due process

Archives