Requests for correction take aim at tribunal’s findings and are therefore inadmissible

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.

Respondent’s conduct justifies departing from principle that costs follow the event

Dissenter opines that, given Mozambique’s engagement with PEL, claimant had special status that warranted investment protection

Claimant’s pre-feasibility study and memorandum of interest qualify as pre-investment activities

Pre-investment activities are generally not covered by investment treaties

Inherent meaning of “investment” requires contribution of capital or equivalent, ownership of asset expected to yield a return, and a certain duration

Notion of ‘investment’ has an inherent meaning

Mozambique tried to “derail” proceedings through parallel arbitration

Background: Claimant fails to secure concession over rail-port infrastructure project

Interest is fixed at US prima rate + 2%

Colombia is ordered to pay 5 million USD in costs to claimant

Tribunal orders that compensation should be free of Colombian (but not UK) taxes

Majority decides it has power to order payment of indemnity for future damages stemming from enforcement of measure that breach BIT

Tribunal declines request for order directing Colombia to revoke the measures in breach

Arbitrators reject argument that claim is premature, while providing against double recovery

Tribunal awards 4.5 million USD in historical damages

Tribunal finds that state’s conduct undermined the notion of legal correctness, violating FET; majority finds no violation in development of FOB price

FET protects against arbitrariness and legal uncertainty, even when tied to minimum standard of treatment

State’s decision to reopen past royalties in the context of settlement of accounts upon termination of Concessions was not reasonably justified

Sudden imposition of iron royalty lacks legal and economic basis

Tribunal sees clear contradiction and unreasonableness in Contraloría’s revision of deductible costs and failure to comply with limitations period

Majority finds that prospective formula for calculating nickel FOB price was reasonable, but formula’s retroactive application was unreasonable

Tribunal finds “clear contradiction” in state’s conduct regarding the applicable royalty and cost deduction rates, and Colombia’s explanation is “irrational”

Subsequent measures relate to facts mentioned in notice of dispute

Claims are not premature, and BIT contains no requirement that damage must have been incurred before arbitration can be brought

Archives