Tribunal notes in footnote that ICSID Convention contains no origin of funds requirement

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 considered that fork-in-the-road provision did not apply where local proceedings arose from a different cause of action

Arbitrators found that international law (not local law) determined whether or not a dual national could rely on one of his nationalities in order to claim under a BIT

While Paraguayan authorities failed to properly supervise the financial sector, this shortcoming did not amount to a treaty violation

Taking into account several factors, the tribunal splits the costs between the parties

Endorsement of letters of credit by the Central Bank did not give rise to State liability

Tribunal saw no proof of discriminatory treatment

Arbitrators found no admission requirement in the BIT

While recognizing that Paraguay’s supervisory bodies were negligent in monitoring the financial market, the tribunal considered that a failure to act could not give rise to an expropriation claim

Paraguay consented to ICSID arbitration when concluding the BIT

Dispute qualifies as legal dispute over an investment

CMS entitled to tariff calculation in US dollars and adjustments pursuant to US Producer Price Index, as well as certain stabilization mechanisms

Article 42 of ICSID Convention not relevant in determining law applicable to jurisdictional issues, nor does tribunal see any role for Argentinian law in this respect

Dispute submitted in request for arbitration does not differ from original one; subsequent measures adopted by Argentina form part of single dispute before tribunal and can give rise to ancillary claims

Non-precluded measures clause in U.S.-Argentina BIT is not self-judging

Both domestic and international law are applicable to merits

BIT-based necessity defense also fails, tribunal denies self-judging character of treaty exception clause

Consent requirements satisfied

Argentina’s necessity defense based on customary international law fails

Both international and domestic law applicable, but tribunal gives precedence to the former

LG&E has standing to claim under BIT; contractual dispute resolution clause no bar to jurisdiction

Argentina’s breaches partially excused by state of necessity

Lack of discriminatory intent does not prevent BIT breach; Argentina’s measures not arbitrary

Each party to cover own costs

Tribunal finds breach of BIT’s umbrella clause

Archives