Dissenter would have found BIT breaches through unlawful expropriation and failure to provide fair and equitable treatment

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.

Dissenter opines that estoppel principle cannot apply, since the 2012 letter was sent by representatives of the Companies, not the shareholders

Mr. Gómez Pinzón finds that claimant proved his ownership of shares and there is no need for trans-border flows

Dissenter opines that tribunal wrongly added action of investing requirement to the BIT

Mr. Gómez Pinzón stresses that claimant’s status as protected investor was unaffected by his registration under the Cartagena Agreement

Each party is ordered to pay its own costs, while claimant is directed to bear arbitration costs; tribunal instructs PCA to release security for costs

Majority adds that the claim would, in any event, also amount to an abuse of process

Tribunal majority finds insufficient proof that claimant made a contribution, in money or in kind, in exchange for the acquisition of his shares in the Companies

Claimant is estopped from alleging that Venezuela carried out an unlawful expropriation, in violation of the BIT

Rule of estoppel is a general principle of law, tied to the concept of good faith

BIT’s reference to ICSID Convention confirms trans-border flow of capital requirement, according to majority arbitrators

Tribunal majority considers that BIT only protects investments entailing trans-border flows between Spain and Venezuela, which are lacking in this case

Majority finds that BIT’s definition of “investor” must be considered when interpreting ordinary meaning of definition of “investment”, implying a requirement that the claimant must have made an active act of investing

Article 31 of the VCLT sets out a “single rule of interpretation”

Background: Expropriation of family-owned food distribution conglomerate leads to several treaty claims

Costs were split according to relative outcome of different stages of the proceedings

Interest set at LIBOR + 2%, compounded semi-annually

Tribunal awarded 42.2 million USD, based on expected exchange rate and country risk premium

Tribunal referred to World Bank Guidelines to define fair market value

Circumstances of the case warranted setting valuation date at day prior to illegal expropriation

Counterfactual scenario cannot ignore regulatory risk

Claimant failed to substantiate multi-million-dollar valuation proposed by commission established under Venezuelan law

Enactment of a general law did not constitute a commitment for the purposes of the BIT’s umbrella clause

Venezuela’s disregard of its own procedures amounted to arbitrary conduct

Tribunal distinguished current MST from Neer v. Mexico standard

Archives