Claimant’s valuation is unconvincing

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 opines on role of Article 31 of the VCLT in context of parties’ debate about applicable law

No additional “economic” test in the BIT – or even an extended Salini test

“Protection of life” qualifies as public purpose

Other BITs do not qualify as circumstances of conclusion of the Treaty

In a detailed dissent, Bolivia’s appointee explains why the BIT did not cover indirect investments

Bolivia cannot breach the FET standard with a nearly-lawful expropriation that it retained the right to perform

BIT does not cover indirect investments

Full Protection and Security standard not breached either

Costs are partly split, but parties left to bear their legal costs

No treaty ever excluded indirect investment explicitly

Legitimate expectations must be reasonable and proceed from due diligence

No discount for contributory fault

Treaty covers indirect investment

On the facts, the claimant failed to respect consensus-based decision-making processes of local populations

Choice of interest rate prompts dissent

Origin of capital is irrelevant, but cannot distract from lack of investment

Alleged illegal conduct does not reach to the existence of the investment

Archives

Claimant’s valuation is unconvincing

Tribunal confirms occurrence of expropriation

No discount for information developed in relation to investment

Co-arbitrators disagree with chair’s assessment, for different reasons

On quantum, early nature of the project leads tribunal to prefer costs-based approach

Lack of any compensation offer means expropriation was unlawful

Bolivia’s cost-based valuation is more appropriate

Due process is complied with as long as there are ways to challenge expropriation