Tribunal awarded costs to prevailing party in each phase; Bangladesh was ordered to reimburse claimants’ costs associated with state’s obstructive behavior

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.

On merits, tribunal rejected claimants’ interpretation of tariff provisions as only applicable to non-Petrobangla third party sales, referring to plain language of contracts and claimants’ subsequent conduct

Petrobangla’s actions were attributable to Bangladesh pursuant to domestic law

Remaining allegations of res judicata and failure to comply with notice procedures were dismissed

ICSID arbitration clause in the Petrobangla’s contracts was deemed an expression of the state’s consent; the company was considered a de jure organ of Bangladesh

Bangladesh’s consent to ICSID arbitration covered the entire tariff dispute arising directly out of claimants’ investment, which formed a “unified contractual scheme”

Dispute arose directly out of claimants’ investment, rather than from purely commercial contracts

Applying Salini test, arbitrators found that claimants had made a protected investment

Tribunal found that ICSID Convention applied to UK’s overseas territory

Bangladesh seeks anti-arbitration injunction, and tribunal directs respondent to refrain from obstructing the arbitration proceedings

Background: Parties disagreed on whether contractual carrying charge for use of Petrobangla pipelines applied when Petrobangla was also buyer of natural gas

USA’s lack of consideration for indigenous’ rights affected decision on costs

Tribunal saw no evidence of denial of justice or lack of due process

Lack of consideration for First Nations’ interests was regrettable, but did not amount to breach of MST

Potential breach of obligation assumed under separate international agreement does not establish breach of MST

Claim that alleged investment should not have been subjected to challenged measure did not fall within scope of NT or MFN standards

Partial expropriation does not generally qualify as breach of Article 1110 of NAFTA

Ambiguous legislation cannot ground legitimate expectations for the purpose of expropriation claim

Additional elements provided by claimants, even if considered in aggregate, were insufficient to meet restrictive definition of investment under NAFTA

Escrow payments linked to cigarette sales were not a protected investment under Article 1139 of NAFTA

Inventory loan did not constitute an investment

Arbitrators found no evidence of indigenous customary practice proving collective transboundary enterprise

Tribunal found no jurisdiction under NAFTA in relation to measures that allegedly affected Canadian plant

Tribunal relied on VCLT rules of interpretation, but stressed limited role of extra-NAFTA rules of international law

Tribunal avoided formalistic approach to admissibility of amended claims, privileging judicial economy

Archives