Order on costs is rectified based on parties’ advance payments

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.

Omission of reference to compound interest in dispositive part of award can be remedied through rectification

Cost of debt in Peru is reflected by standard US bond rate plus Peru’s country risk premium at the date of the Award

Tribunal confirms previous reasoning on reference date for interest, opining that substantive revisions do not fall within scope of rectification proceedings

Dissenter criticizes majority’s six-step analysis

Dissenter opines that claimant was entitled to expect a return to the Electricity Law’s original regime

Majority decides that costs should lie where they fall

No need to rule on necessity defense or quantum pleadings

MFN clause only governs “matters” regulated by the BIT, thus it cannot be used to import an umbrella clause

Claimant generated positive cash flows, thus no expropriation occurred

Full protection standard encompasses legal security, but claim is dismissed; no need to rule on MFN detour

Non-impairment standard does not substantially differ from protections against discrimination and arbitrariness under FET provision; tribunal finds no breach of the standard

Claimant was not harassed or coerced into entering electricity agreements with Argentina’s government

No discrimination as neither old and new power plants, nor private and public energy generators were in similar conditions

Argentina’s conduct was aimed at normalizing the energy market, and thus neither unreasonable nor arbitrary

FET encompasses obligations of transparency and due process, but tribunal finds no breach on the facts

Tribunal majority sees no legitimate expectation that the favorable electricity regime of the 1990s would be restored by a certain date, stressing that Orazul made its investment when the Emergency Law was already in place

BIT contains autonomous FET provision, which protects legitimate expectations

BIT provides for applicable law

Estoppel objection also fails

Claimant has not clearly and explicitly waived its right to resort to ICSID arbitration

Abuse of process allegation is dismissed, as tribunal sees no foreseeable or pre-existing dispute and claimant’s incorporation in Spain was carried out for tax reasons

Claimant made an investment prior to the adoption of the disputed measures

Contribution, duration, and risk requirements are satisfied; BIT does not require active act of investing

Seat requirement is satisfied since claimant has its actual place of management in Spain

Archives