Mexico is awarded some costs, but request for joint liability is declined

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.

Customs decisions were not arbitrary

Customs decisions did not lack due process

Customs decisions are consistent with local and international law

Waste Management II standard reflects customary international law

No need to prove specific prohibition against impugned conduct under customary international law

Investment was not in like circumstances as comparators

Alleged discrimination against the investor (as opposed to the investment) are irrelevant

Discrimination claim is limited by the scope of the Joint Venture Agreement

Limitation period argument is linked to the merits, and ultimately deemed moot

Vento controlled the Joint Venture

Vento is a US-based entity, owned and controlled by a US national

Claimant fails to prove that loans were actually paid

Non-corporate joint venture qualifies as investment under NAFTA

RFA was properly authorized

Mexico failed to prove that Vento lacked the capacity to deliver a NOD while it was a forfeited corporation under Texas law

Tribunal clarifies the respective roles of the arbitrators and ICSID’s Secretary-General

Background: Long-running dispute over right to preferential NAFTA customs tariffs leads to treaty-based arbitration

Background: dispute over tax rebates on cigarette exports leads to NAFTA arbitration

Court briefly analysed the procedural decisions giving rise to the set-aside application

Referring to WTO law, the majority considers that it could validly shift the burden of proof to the respondent

Majority grants a fraction of damages claimed by investor and orders parties to share costs

NAFTA does not require exhaustion of local remedies

Claimant has standing to bring a claim as a US national, despite being a permanent resident in Mexico

Only the notice of arbitration (and not the notice of intent) can interrupt the NAFTA limitation period

Archives