Issue of Venezuela’s proper representative not part of the annulment proceeding

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.

Venezuela was ordered to bear ICSID costs and Vestey’s costs

Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its dismissal of Venezuela’s identity-of-disputes objection and finding that claimant held compensable property rights

Committee saw no violation of Venezuela’s right to be heard

Committee upheld tribunal’s finding that Vestey held property rights, finding that disagreement on tribunal’s application of Venezuelan law was not a ground for annulment

Committee saw no failure to apply the proper law by the tribunal in dismissing Venezuela’s identity-of-disputes objection as inadmissible

Committee upheld tribunal’s subsidiary decision that the dispute falls within the scope of claimant’s 2005 request for arbitration, seeing no manifest excess of powers

Failure to state reasons includes insufficient, inadequate, or contradictory reasons

Serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure requires “genuine prospect of a different result”

Two-step analysis of manifest excess of powers is not mandatory

Review of annullable errors in tribunal’s exercise of jurisdiction and application of law does not amount to a retrial or appeal

“Manifest excess of powers” must be both material and obvious

Committee confirmed its power to annul award in part or in full

Annulment is unconcerned with substantive correctness, but committee rejected restrictive interpretation of grounds for annulment

Background: Venezuela filed for annulment of award in long-running arbitration stemming from expropriation of farming venture

Background: loss of portfolio investment allegedly caused by Malaysian currency exchange controls

Arbitrator finds that BIT requires investment to be made in the territory of host state

Background: UK-based claimant initiates arbitration over judicial cancellation of Kiev real-estate transaction

Each party bears its own legal expenses, while arbitration costs are split

Tribunal finds territoriality principle to be governing, including for intangible property

Post-secession conduct is not relevant to tribunal’s conclusions

Shareholding in Sudapet is amenable to state succession rules

Even if held by the claimant, Sudapet’s interests are to be treated as state property

Treatment of Sudapet’s interests during pre-secession negotiations confirms tribunal’s conclusion that Sudapet’s interests are to be treated as state-owned property

Tribunal examines the extent of government ownership of Sudapet

Archives