While Mexico prevailed, the state’s procedural misconduct should be taken into account in apportioning 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.

NAFTA’s Article 1116 does not allow claims for reflective losses

All remaining claimants qualify as investors, even if they disposed of their share before filing the case or held them indirectly

The centre of gravity of both claimants’ activities points toward their dominant and effective nationalities being Mexican, as illustrated by their roles at the highest echelons of the state’s political and business life

Dominant and effective nationality test applies under NAFTA, as confirmed by agreement of all three NAFTA states

While NAFTA considers permanent residents as nationals, it provides no particular rule on claims by dual nationals

Other treaties and precedents have limited value in steering the tribunal’s interpretation

Assessment of the evidence on allegations of corruption cannot be reduced to a single standard, but “compelling and particularized evidence” is needed

Background: Mexican bankruptcy proceedings follow cancellation of oil rig leasing contracts and prompt NAFTA claim

UNCITRAL tribunal issues procedural orders on NAFTA Article 1128 and a request for exclusion of a witness statement by a government employee

Claimant ordered to bear costs of respondents not bound by arbitration clause

Discussion on applicability of res judicata doctrine is deferred to merits stage

Challenges to exercise of sovereign powers fall outside of tribunal’s ratione materiae jurisdiction

Tribunal finds no ground to look into potential implicit consent to arbitration under Bolivian Arbitration Law

Tribunal finds no element to consider that ESM acted on behalf of Bolivia

State’s overall involvement in the planning and implementation of the project does not make it a party to the Contract

State’s participation in joint venture contract only fulfilled a legal requirement

Contract leaves no space to consider Bolivia and state-owned company as ‘parties’

Background: Indian steel giant resorts to ICC arbitration following failure of mining joint venture with state-owned company

PdVSA is ordered to bear 63% of the arbitration costs

Tribunal awards post-award interest at 1-year US Treasury bills rate, plus 1% as a deterrent to default

One-third of compensation claim is rejected for lack of evidence regarding specific link to projects in dispute

Tribunal awards over 50 million USD in compensation for early termination; claimant bears risk of inflation and reconversion process of Venezuelan currency

PdVSA’s role as de facto contracting party implies that it is jointly and severally liable for compensation due to former contractor

Estoppel doctrine prevents PdVSA from relying on claimant’s alleged breaches to justify Contracts’ termination

Archives