Surpass is awarded 48 million USD, plus interest and costs

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.

Bariven did not meet its burden of proving that the purchase orders had been obtained through corrupt means

Tribunal sees no need to finally decide on the standard of proof for corruption allegation

Tribunal doubts that provision on decision by ICC Court on consolidation applies, but finds that these criteria are met in any event

Arbitrators see clerical error in discrete purchase order that does not refer to terms and conditions containing an arbitration clause, upholding jurisdiction over the corresponding claim

Tribunal sees no evidence of an agreement by the parties that the BPA would apply even before its effective date

Effective date of Blanket Purchase Agreement post-dates purchase orders, meaning that the dispute should be referred to arbitration rather than Texas courts

Background: Chinese state-owned company files for ICC arbitration, asking PdVSA subsidiary to make payments under orders for the purchase of vehicles and equipment

Costs are split, in view of novelty of issues

Tribunal saw legitimate expectations as central to FET

Costs mostly awarded against Estonia

Payment agreement and associated letter generated legitimate expectation of loan repayment, regardless of domestic validity

Damages calculated based on balance of unpaid loan

Costs mostly awarded against Estonia

Background: Estonian state entity failed to repay loan granted to fish processing venture, after 1991 Estonian independence hampered business operations

Loan constituted an investment under both BITs and ICSID Convention

Tribunal rejected objections relating to investor illegality, territorial jurisdiction, and temporal jurisdiction

Tribunal rejected allegation that investors “failed to uphold their end of the bargain”

Estonia’s encouragement of state entity’s efforts to overturn payment agreement breached claimants’ legitimate expectations that agreement would be honoured

Corruption allegations are dismissed absent “irrefutable” proof

Lack of control at time of the dispute means tribunal lacks jurisdiction, majority says

Existence of the underlying contracts can be demonstrated by any means

Archives

Surpass is awarded 48 million USD, plus interest and costs

Bariven owes full payment of one purchase order that it had purported to cancel

All of Bariven’s counterclaims are dismissed, on jurisdictional or merits grounds

Tribunal sees no misrepresentation by Surpass

Bariven did not meet its burden of proving that the purchase orders had been obtained through corrupt means

Tribunal sees no need to finally decide on the standard of proof for corruption allegation

Arbitrators see clerical error in discrete purchase order that does not refer to terms and conditions containing an arbitration clause, upholding jurisdiction over the corresponding claim

Tribunal sees no evidence of an agreement by the parties that the BPA would apply even before its effective date

Effective date of Blanket Purchase Agreement post-dates purchase orders, meaning that the dispute should be referred to arbitration rather than Texas courts

Background: Chinese state-owned company files for ICC arbitration, asking PdVSA subsidiary to make payments under orders for the purchase of vehicles and equipment

Costs are split, in view of novelty of issues

Tribunal saw legitimate expectations as central to FET

Costs mostly awarded against Estonia

Payment agreement and associated letter generated legitimate expectation of loan repayment, regardless of domestic validity

Damages calculated based on balance of unpaid loan

Costs mostly awarded against Estonia

Background: Estonian state entity failed to repay loan granted to fish processing venture, after 1991 Estonian independence hampered business operations

Loan constituted an investment under both BITs and ICSID Convention

Tribunal rejected objections relating to investor illegality, territorial jurisdiction, and temporal jurisdiction

Tribunal rejected allegation that investors “failed to uphold their end of the bargain”

Estonia’s encouragement of state entity’s efforts to overturn payment agreement breached claimants’ legitimate expectations that agreement would be honoured

Corruption allegations are dismissed absent “irrefutable” proof

Lack of control at time of the dispute means tribunal lacks jurisdiction, majority says

Existence of the underlying contracts can be demonstrated by any means

Email Alerts

Editor’s Picks

User Login:

Email Alerts

Editor’s Picks