Tribunal confirms that compensation for tin smelter is conditioned on specific act by Glencore, which has been accomplished

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.

Costs are split

Award should be net of taxes, but tribunal declines to order tax gross-up

BIT mandates interest rate to be applicable in Bolivia, militating for fixed rate set by central bank; prohibition against compounding under domestic law warrants simple interest

Tin stock quantities proven by contemporary correspondence between the parties

Antimony smelter has positive asset value, since remediation costs are insufficiently evidenced

No reason to correct country risk premium

Lack of evidence of increase of smelter’s production warrants relying on historical figures

Alleged relaunch of tailing plant is speculative; claimant’s alternative compensation request is belated

In assessing Colquiri mine’s fair market value, tribunal declines to rely on ambitious expansion plan

Glencore did not contribute to damages, as social unrest stemmed from fraught negotiations in which both parties were involved

Tribunal declines to find that unlawful expropriation allows it to value assets as of the date of the award

No need to decide if treaty’s expropriation provision contains lex specialis as to compensation standard

Lack of legal basis for Tim Smelter nationalisation decree breached arbitrariness component of FET standard

Bolivia acted reasonably and within its capacities in dealing with social unrest at Colquiri mine, thus complying with FPS standard

No evidence that tin mine had been nationalised to quell public unrest

Expropriation of tin and antimony smelters could not be justified by mere allegations of past illegalities

“Reversion” of assets to the state amounted to an expropriation

Measures falling within the police powers doctrine would not qualify as expropriation under the BIT

Respondent must have known that dispute encompassed takeover of Tin Stock

Dispute-resolution clauses in underlying contract do not bar jurisdiction over treaty claims

Mere allegations of illegalities in privatisation process that took place years before Glencore entered the picture cannot trip the claims

Dispute was not foreseeable, and restructuring had plausible reasons

Piercing the corporate veil requires “specific factors or compelling reasons”

Language used throughout the treaty cannot trump clear definition of “investment”, which requires no active act of investing

Archives