Neither parallel legal actions nor increase of damages claim qualify as abuse of process

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 rejects fork-in-the-road objection, finding that BIT claims and domestic claims have different causes of action

Arbitrators read implicit legality requirement into the BIT, but decision on whether the requirement is met is reserved for a subsequent stage

Continuous nationality argument is joined with the merits

Tribunal reserves decision on alleged settlement of the dispute

Final decision on whether Jak Sukyas claimed independently actionable breaches that occurred after the BIT’s entry into force is joined to the merits

Question of whether Jak Sukyas holds a residual right to restitution and/or compensation under Romanian law is joined to the merits

Tribunal finds that CIRO shares held by Jak Sukyas’ predecessors were not an investment that existed at the time when the USA BIT entered into force, and are thus not protected

In Jak Sukyas’ case, tribunal interprets “investment” based on the USA BIT as entailing several requirements

Romania is awarded full costs in the Edward Sukyas case

MFN clause cannot be used to circumvent Canada BIT’s cultural industries exception, declining jurisdiction

Cultural industries exception included in the Canada BITs prevents any claims based on cultural industries investments, rather than simply safeguarding the states’ right to regulate

Tribunals dismiss claims under Turkey BIT, stressing that agreement to arbitrate formed with the notices of arbitration; neither right to amend claims under UNCITRAL Rules nor alleged abusive withholding of consent change the assessment

Canada files non-disputing party submission in Jak case; tribunal holds public hearing

Claimants invoke Turkey BIT for the first time with their Statement of Claims

Tribunals direct claimants’ counsel to submit undertaking regarding potential adverse costs award, but decline to order further disclosures

Background: Dispute over decades-old transfer of film business to the state and Romania’s handling of subsequent restitution proceedings leads to two parallel treaty arbitrations

Objections are not intertwined with the merits, even though parties have different interpretations of the dispute

All of the Portugal’s objections could dispose of substantial part of the dispute

Portugal raises six preliminary objections, including allegation of abuse of process

Public statements about Turkmenistan do not meet threshold for disqualification

Alleged personal connections with Turkmen officials are unsubstantiated

Concurrent appointments as arbitrator and expert for the same party in cases involving the same counsel carries an inherent risk of ex parte communications

Legal standard under ICSID Convention requires obvious appearance of lack of independence or impartiality; standards in UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, IBA Guidelines, and Code of Conduct are not binding, but may provide “useful guidance”

Disqualification proposal was submitted in a timely fashion

Archives