Monetary award does not violate public policy

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.

Djibouti was given proper opportunity to be heard in the arbitration

Court has substantive jurisdiction over the petition

Djibouti impliedly waived sovereign immunity by participating in the proceedings without raising an objection

Background: Port terminal dispute gives rise to multi-jurisdictional battle

Djibouti initiated arbitration in 2014, seeking to cancel the concession agreement; respondents’ counterclaims were not covered by initial decisions

Tribunal also sees breach of concession’s exclusivity provisions

Djibouti ordered to pay arbitration costs and respondents’ legal fees

Respondents are awarded unpaid royalties under the concession

Tribunal declines to suspend proceedings at behest of court appointed administrator

Tribunal finds no proof that claimant offered to pay bribes to obtain the mining lease

Tribunal finds no solid and persuasive evidence of corruption in the making of the original investment

Arbitrators see no evidence of corruption in the acquisition of the investment by the claimant

Tribunal finds elements of improper conduct during the performance of the investment, but sees no causal link with the investment

Pakistan’s application is not untimely, as new evidence amounts to ‘special circumstances’

Tribunal accepts to hear Pakistan’s belated corruption defense in a separate proceeding

Tribunal considers that allegations of corruption must be proved by “solid” and “persuasive” evidence

Tribunal clarifies burden of proof and requirements for proving a corruption allegation

Pakistan raises concerns about cultural differences and “confirmation bias”

Full costs are placed on Pakistan

Tribunal doubts Pakistan’s ‘post-hoc’ concerns over mine feasibility

Interest awarded based on borrowing costs of claimant’s owners

Security plans largely adequate, but tribunal questions some figures, leading to reduction in valuation

Large reduction for discrepancies in resources price forecasts; no need for country risk as part of modern DCF analysis

Claimant’s valuation reduced to take account of higher royalty rates and risk of non-renewal of mining licence

Archives