New arguments may be raised in the post-hearing phase only if the opposing party has an opportunity to respond

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.

During the post-hearing phase, new evidence may only be submitted if relevant to questions previously posed by the tribunal

Background: Tribunal invites post-hearing briefs in dispute with Peru over environmental remediation at metallurgical complex

Claimant is awarded over 10 million USD in costs, with tribunal stressing that uncovering fraud requires resources

Tribunal finds that fraudulent conduct is “very serious” and relates to subject-matter of the arbitration, concluding that claims are inadmissible

Fraudulently obtained funds were moved through a series of offshore companies, in operations that “bear the hallmarks” of a money laundering scheme

Grand Express made misrepresentations and sent forged documents to the EDB, tribunal finds

Tribunal finds that entities linked to the claimant defrauded OVZ

Conduct of three individuals can be attributed to the claimant; non-appearance of witness called for cross-examination gives rise to adverse inferences

Tribunal sees no reason to apply heightened standard of proof to illegality allegations

Post-investment illegalities may render claims inadmissible, based on a series of different theories

Legality requirement contained in definition of ‘investment’ only applies to establishment of investment

Belarus’ ratione materiae/illegality objection is not untimely and, in any event, the tribunal would have examined it ex officio

Legality requirement contained in definition of ‘investor’ only applies to establishment of investment

Tribunal has jurisdiction over Grand Express’ receivables, which were never assigned to the EDB

Tribunal applies principle of non-retroactivity of treaties to dismiss some claims

Claimant could validly invoke ICSID AF Rules

Tribunal addresses request for provisional measures and authorizes additional claim

Background: Termination of railcar manufacturing joint-venture leads to treaty claim

State is ordered to bear arbitration costs and pay 75% of claimants’ legal costs

Pre-award and post-award interest added, at different rates

Tax gross-up rejected; no precedent and no clear evidence that award would be taxed

Tribunal sets 9.4% as hypothetical reasonable rate of return that European Commission would have determined, and awards compensation for plants achieving lower returns due to solar levy

Separate causation arguments dismissed

EU state aid rules play central role in tribunal’s damages analysis

Archives