Tribunal finds that the claimants have pleaded a “sufficient case” that they have a claim based on facts occurring after the cut-off date, and it joins the ratione temporis objection with the merits

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.

Most of Rwanda’s costs to be borne by the claimants

Alleged collusion with local partner is unsubstantiated

Administrative shortcomings do not reach the level of a minimum standard of treatment breach

No discrimination since different treatment is justified

No expropriation given lack of expropriable rights

Claimant’s expectation to be granted long-term licence was not reasonable

Local entity was not entitled to long-term exploitation licence

Failure to mention one claimant in notice of intent is a matter of form, not substance

Failure to explicitly claim on behalf of local entity is not relevant for jurisdictional purposes

Investment in local company meets all six criteria

Lack of investment ratione materiae means that BVG lacks standing

Objection ratione temporis requires factual findings on the merits

Tribunal declines to disqualify expert witness

Background: mining investor fails to secure long-term exploitation licences

Tribunal’s jurisdiction on part of the damages claim also contested

“Abuse of process” objection still on the table

Parties debate what is the threshold for “substantial activities”

Unclear if the US government wishes to intervene in the dispute with respect to Panama’s attempt to deny benefits to Bridgestone Licensing

Panama says that, in any case, the dispute does not “arise out of” the purported investment; claimant disagrees

Bridgestone America’s investment still very much a subject of debate

Panama contests claimants’ interpretation of the applicable burden of proof

Claimant request suspension of proceedings pending advance payment

Claimants’ loss or damage do not qualify for protection

Inventive claim of abuse of process also on the tribunal’s table

Archives