While Mexico prevailed, the state’s procedural misconduct should be taken into account in apportioning costs

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.

NAFTA’s Article 1116 does not allow claims for reflective losses

All remaining claimants qualify as investors, even if they disposed of their share before filing the case or held them indirectly

The centre of gravity of both claimants’ activities points toward their dominant and effective nationalities being Mexican, as illustrated by their roles at the highest echelons of the state’s political and business life

Dominant and effective nationality test applies under NAFTA, as confirmed by agreement of all three NAFTA states

While NAFTA considers permanent residents as nationals, it provides no particular rule on claims by dual nationals

Other treaties and precedents have limited value in steering the tribunal’s interpretation

Assessment of the evidence on allegations of corruption cannot be reduced to a single standard, but “compelling and particularized evidence” is needed

Background: Mexican bankruptcy proceedings follow cancellation of oil rig leasing contracts and prompt NAFTA claim

UNCITRAL tribunal issues procedural orders on NAFTA Article 1128 and a request for exclusion of a witness statement by a government employee

Dissenter considers that mere act of filing legal claim cannot engage state responsibility

Mr. Jana opines that ordering indemnity for hypothetical future damages carries systemic problems

Dissenter sees no legal ground in international law to order indemnity for future damages

Interest is fixed at US prima rate + 2%

Colombia is ordered to pay 5 million USD in costs to claimant

Tribunal orders that compensation should be free of Colombian (but not UK) taxes

Majority decides it has power to order payment of indemnity for future damages stemming from enforcement of measure that breach BIT

Tribunal declines request for order directing Colombia to revoke the measures in breach

Arbitrators reject argument that claim is premature, while providing against double recovery

Tribunal awards 4.5 million USD in historical damages

Tribunal finds that state’s conduct undermined the notion of legal correctness, violating FET; majority finds no violation in development of FOB price

FET protects against arbitrariness and legal uncertainty, even when tied to minimum standard of treatment

State’s decision to reopen past royalties in the context of settlement of accounts upon termination of Concessions was not reasonably justified

Sudden imposition of iron royalty lacks legal and economic basis

Tribunal sees clear contradiction and unreasonableness in Contraloría’s revision of deductible costs and failure to comply with limitations period

Archives