Prevailing trend of transparency in investment arbitration weighs on decision on transparency regime

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.

Given time extensions granted to claimant, respondent can have more time to prepare its own submissions

Proceedings are temporarily suspended while claimant overcomes hindrance in posting advance on costs

Tribunal refuses to allow access to the record and the hearing

EC submission found to not disrupt the proceedings or cause any undue burden or prejudice

EC provides a different perspective and has a significant interest in the proceedings; parties had opportunity to comment

Application of test results in finding that EC is suitable to intervene as an NDP only on limited issues

Exercise of power to allow amicus curiae submission relies on five factors

Background: EC asks for permission to intervene, proposing to address two issues

Legal costs for Rule 41 proceedings lie where they fall; allocation of arbitration costs is reserved

Tribunal majority rules that FET claim manifestly falls under FTA’s tax carve-out, since default interest qualifies as ‘taxation measure’

Tribunal majority finds that expropriation claim is manifestly without legal merit since claimants did not have an FTA-protected investment that could be subject to expropriation

NT and FET claims do not manifestly fall within FTA’s financial services carve-out

Tribunal rejects argument that claimant’s parallel litigation waivers are manifestly without legal validity

Standard under 2022 Rule 41 is high, similar to that of 2006 Rule 41(5)

Background: Peru argues that claim based on imposition of default interest for tax liability manifestly lacks legal merit

Majority awards costs to Romania

In any case, tribunal majority would have dismissed claimants’ arguments based on lack of causation

Second alternative claim based on post-2013 events, including UNESCO classification, is rejected

First alternative claim is dismissed, with arbitrators stressing that there was no discrimination

Arbitrators see no composite act and reject claimants’ principal claim

Majority sees no mishandling of Bucium license applications

Submission and rejection of Draft Law regarding the project are not tainted by abuse of power, according to majority arbitrators

Tribunal majority finds no impropriety in EIA process and related technical elements

Tribunal sees no improper link between delays in permitting process and state’s attempt to renegotiate financial aspects of mining project

Archives