Agreement on exchange of information between parallel tribunals results in analogous decisions on transparency

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 takes note of withdrawal of interim measures’ request, deferring decision on costs to later stage of arbitration

Claimant is awarded over 10 million USD in costs, with tribunal stressing that uncovering fraud requires resources

Tribunal finds that fraudulent conduct is “very serious” and relates to subject-matter of the arbitration, concluding that claims are inadmissible

Fraudulently obtained funds were moved through a series of offshore companies, in operations that “bear the hallmarks” of a money laundering scheme

Grand Express made misrepresentations and sent forged documents to the EDB, tribunal finds

Tribunal finds that entities linked to the claimant defrauded OVZ

Conduct of three individuals can be attributed to the claimant; non-appearance of witness called for cross-examination gives rise to adverse inferences

Tribunal sees no reason to apply heightened standard of proof to illegality allegations

Post-investment illegalities may render claims inadmissible, based on a series of different theories

Legality requirement contained in definition of ‘investment’ only applies to establishment of investment

Belarus’ ratione materiae/illegality objection is not untimely and, in any event, the tribunal would have examined it ex officio

Legality requirement contained in definition of ‘investor’ only applies to establishment of investment

Tribunal has jurisdiction over Grand Express’ receivables, which were never assigned to the EDB

Tribunal applies principle of non-retroactivity of treaties to dismiss some claims

Claimant could validly invoke ICSID AF Rules

Tribunal addresses request for provisional measures and authorizes additional claim

Background: Termination of railcar manufacturing joint-venture leads to treaty claim

No ground to shift costs on account of claimants’ alleged post-award misconduct

Romania’s requests for interpretation were not aimed at a genuine clarification of the award

Third and fourth requests for interpretation are inadmissible since they pertain to facts that occurred after the award was rendered

State’s first and second requests for interpretation are inadmissible, since they merely seek tribunal’s opinion on enforcement under ICSID Convention, a matter that was not discussed in the award

Majority considers that tribunal cannot interpret anything that was not addressed in the underlying award

Challenge should focus on alleged criminal acts by Mr. Poncet, not on how these acts have been dealt with by local judiciary

UNCITRAL Rules’ standard for arbitrators does not require “good fame” or “high moral character”

Archives