Claimants receive only partial costs reimbursement, despite tribunal expressing “grave concern” over India’s redaction of a document

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.

Final compensation totalled more than 111 million USD, plus interest

Damages are determined as 40% of Devas’ value if treaty had not been breached

Tribunal paints favourable picture of Devas’ business prospects, given support from Antrix and Deutsche Telekom

DCF model adjusted for discount rate, revenue growth rate and success probability

Dissenter rejects DCF approach for uncertain business, favours award of sunk costs

Majority finds DCF approach suitable to value Devas, despite no operational activity

Tribunal tests its conclusions against other valuations of Devas

Tribunal adopts Chorzow standard for valuation, seeing little difference between “market value” and “fair market value” standards

Majority holds that “essential security” defence has to be treated with deference

Impact of arbitral award rendered in parallel ICC arbitration is limited

Considering that cancellation was motivated by a “mix of objectives”, majority finds that essential security defence partially exonerates India

Tribunal does not find any unreasonable or discriminatory measures – and interprets latter as targeting due to foreign nationality.

Arbitrators agree that termination of lease agreement is attributable to India under article 8 of the ILC Articles

Tribunal rejects India’s allegation that the claimants’ investment is of preparatory nature and not protected by the BIT

Majority holds that to the extent that it did not pursue essential security interests, the cancellation of the Devas Agreement amounted to a wrongful expropriation

Tribunal finds that failure to inform investors of cancellation proceedings violated legitimate expectations that respondent would act in good faith

Arbitrators agree to import “full legal protection and security” clause from Serbia-India BIT, but find no violation of that clause

Arbitrators agree that “essential security” clause is not self-judging

Arbitrators in UNCITRAL BIT case grappled with India’s invocation of “essential security” clause to defend its actions

Another BIT case remains on foot, with an award expected later this year or early next

On heels of India hiring U.S. law firm, challenges filed against two arbitrators

Archives