Contractual rights in Daewoo sale agreement, and deposit paid, amount to investment

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.

Argument based on ’cause of action’ estoppel also dismissed; second tribunal is free to determine 2012-15 damages

Tribunal accepts res judicata status of previous merits ruling on Canada’s NAFTA breach

Statements made in first arbitration did not estop the Parties from raising time-bar arguments

Claim for 2012-15 damages was not ruled on by first tribunal; no ‘issue estoppel’ applies

Tribunal doubts theory that ‘continuing act’ renews time-bar; NAFTA non-disputing state pleadings carry ‘considerable weight’ as subsequent practice

Investor says ‘virtually impossible’ to predict R&D spending requirements under complex Guidelines

Continuing breach extends time limit for claims, Mobil’s expert argues

First tribunal’s approach to damages calculation can be applied again, Mobil says

Canada raises NAFTA time-bar issue, rejects ‘continuing breach’ theory

Pleadings from NAFTA state parties carry minimal weight, Mobil says

Canada argues that investor has overstated compensation figures

Prior finding of breach is res judicata, Mobil says

Reply Memorial says res judicata attaches only to losses actually determined by first tribunal, not future losses expressly left for new tribunal

Mobil’s damages claim already rejected by first tribunal, Canada says

Mobil restates merits case

State fails to deliver on second advance payment

Annulment committee stays proceedings and lifts stay on enforcement due to continued non-payment by Venezuela

No jurisdiction for claims under general international law

Expropriation claims not made out; bank account freezes were exercises of police powers

Privity of contract required for umbrella clause claim

Familiar ‘intra-EU’ jurisdictional objections rejected again

Full costs ordered against the investor, but potential for recovery is unclear

No evidence of official conspiracy against investor, despite non-appearance by key witness

Investor cannot extend jurisdiction via MFN/umbrella clause combination

Umbrella clause does not cover general law obligations

Investment still operated for limited purposes; no ‘substantial deprivation’ for expropriation

Tribunal finds one claim not time-barred, postpones determination of another

Tribunal views sanctuary as an investment because it was acquired with expectation of profit

Even if damage occurred, tribunal doubts that Barbados caused it

Separate opinion agrees that the claimant’s good faith conduct allows the tribunal to overlook certain failings

Claimant says legitimate expectations affected by state’s international environmental obligations

Tribunal considers environmental obligations potentially relevant to ‘full protection and security’ standard

Investor hit with US$3 million costs order, but some of state’s costs rejected as disproportionate

Parties dispute facts of environmental degradation at the sanctuary site

No specific representations found, and no reliance anyway

Tribunal chooses substance over form; finds valid ownership of investment despite incomplete and conflicting documentation

Tribunal sees no evidence of environmental damage over the investment timeframe

Tribunal finds that claimant’s non-compliance with Barbados’ exchange control laws is a merely ‘technical’ breach

Most appropriate sanction is not damages or drawing negative inferences at a later stage

Tribunal sees unfairness of leaving case floating indefinitely in limbo

Parties spar over tribunal’s authority to discontinue proceedings in these circumstances

Griffith’s opinion was aimed at procedural issues – and gave no sign of how he’d address merits; moreover, his silence on the challenge can’t lead to adverse inferences

Unchallenged arbitrators say that appearance of bias or dependence should be plain or obvious; 28 days prior to challenge being initiated does not make it untimely

Tribunal dismisses relevance of criticisms voiced by third-party funders

State not required to prove prima facie jurisdiction or merits before obtaining provisional measures

Provisional measures extend to procedural and contingent rights

No general reason to order security for costs against impecunious claimants

Majority finds power to order security for costs in general powers on provisional measures

Presence of third-party funding said to reverse burden of proof on security requests

Third-party funding found to increase risk of non-payment

Exceptional circumstances distinguish case from previous requests for security for costs

No decision by majority on whether prima facie jurisdiction is needed to order provisional measures

The claimant tried to use the umbrella clause to import Turkish domestic law, but not the underlying contract

Tribunal splits on issue of attribution

Tribunal addresses whether there was a “pattern of conduct” leading to wrongful termination of the contract in breach of the BIT

Costs partially follow events

The admission requirement constitutes a pre-condition for the application of the MFN clause

In a nod to claimant, arbitrators concede that approval by Central Bank could meet test of admission under FCIL

Evidence fails to persuade arbitrators that claimant had obtained approval from Indonesian Central Bank

Tribunal distinguishes other ICSID cases where admission was assumed on a de facto basis

Investment must comply with Indonesia’s admission procedure to be afforded protection under the BIT

UN claim alleges that failure to comply with tax and bribe demands led to conviction

Tribunal looks askance at claimant’s request for costs for this phase

Cooling-off period objection is bifurcated

Tribunal’s decision on bifurcated jurisdictional issue

Umbrella clause applies to state’s obligations, not those of university

Ministry audit process did not have due process failings

Attribution hurdle poses difficulty for some claims

Local courts’ handling of case is not improper

Umbrella claim would also require local courts to weigh in on contract breach

Costs split, but claimant must pay small part of Ukraine’s legal defence

Political intrigue at heart of case

Not clear-cut that claimant had transferred interest before expropriation

Tribunal refuses to move seamlessly to considering non-expedited objections

Objections must be self-evident to an outside observer apprised of details

Parties joust over alleged third-party funding, and its implications for costs

Can annulment panels investigate corruption allegations?

Committee deems Argentina’s annulment request to have been made in timely manner

ICSID annulment Committee will stay enforcement of Argentine award in Continental Casualty case; no posting of security required

User Login:

Email Alerts

Editor’s Picks