Claimants are awarded part of their costs, plus interest

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 clarifies that award of compensation is subject to the claimants reimbursing PdVSA the monies awarded under the ICC Award – without any set-offs for counterclaims

Based on the ICC Award, the tribunal rules that the capped amount that a willing buyer would pay is 899 million USD

4-month uncapped cash flow in 2007 is estimated at 85.4 million USD, using the calculations of the First Award

A willing buyer would have paid the capped CNAA amount, plus four months of uncapped revenues after the valuation date

June 26/27, 2007 must be applied as the valuation date, as decided by the first tribunal

CNAA risk is not covered by the high discount rate applied by the first tribunal, thus a further discount needs to be applied

Valuation must reflect the risk of a lawful expropriation occurring between 2007 and 2035, with no room for additional damages expected through international arbitration

To a willing buyer, the CNAA compensation mechanism comes as a risk that this limitation will apply in the future

Due to the non-annulled portions of the First Award, “just compensation” under the BIT cannot simply be determined by reference to the compensation due under the CNAA’s compensation mechanism

Venezuela’s defense that no compensation is due since the ICC Award was paid is rejected, as it fails to account for the BIT and the First Award

Tribunal does not have discretion to choose between the sources of law listed in the BIT; statement that there is no room for customary international law would be incorrect

Neither differences between ICC and ICSID arbitration, nor Article 27 VCLT, entail that the CNAA’s compensation mechanism is irrelevant in the BIT arbitration

Tribunal stresses that, even if contractual compensation mechanism only applied to lawful expropriations, it would still be exclusive in the present case

CNAA’s text and context indicate that the contract’s compensation mechanism was exclusive

Res judicata principle does not prevent the resubmission tribunal from interpreting non-annulled parts of the original award

Res judicata effect of Annulment Decision extends to dispositif as well as annulment findings – but not to the reasons pertaining to the merits of the case

Annulled passages of the First Award cannot be inferred a contrario from committee’s statement that certain passages remain unaffected

Tribunal rules on Venezuela’s representation; co-arbitrators twice reject challenges against Mr. Drymer

Background: ICSID committee partially annuls damages award, leading to resubmission request

Background: Italy’s reforms and the claimants’ investment

Spain is ordered to bear 60% of costs, reflecting the portion of the damages claimed that was ultimately awarded

Arbitrators agree with Spain that interest should accrue at rate of short-term sovereign bonds

Tribunal orders Spain to pay 106.2 million EUR in damages, based on joint valuation model

World without ECT violation carries lower regulatory risk than world with ECT violation

Archives