Ghana is ordered to repay nearly 70 million USD to Nigerian energy firm

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.

No failure to apply law on state responsibility, given claimants’ complicity in underlying illegality

Tribunal was free to assess the probative value of the evidence

No “willful ignorance of evidence” in making factual findings

Application of Kim test was “sufficiently clear”

Tribunal did address estoppel arguments

Award would withstand annulment even if alternative reasoning were deficient

Failure to state reasons only applies with respect to arguments adduced “with reasonably clarity” in the proceedings

Committee sees some deficiencies in ICSID communication processes

Committee rejects allegation that ICSID moved too quickly to appoint arbitrator following Gambian default

Annulment committee affirms power to conduct de novo review of ICSID default arbitrator appointment

Committee chides state for its own communications deficiencies and failure to make timely arbitrator appointment

Contractual timelines for appointment were respected by ICSID

Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction it had, claimants say

Failure to state reasons in not answering to estoppel argument

Committee applies no presumptions, one way or the other, on stay of enforcement

Balance of prejudice and hardship favors The Gambia

No proof of non-compliance risk found by committee

Archives

Ghana is ordered to repay nearly 70 million USD to Nigerian energy firm

Cortec to bear costs of proceedings, but legal fees lie where they fall

Investors argue that the tribunal has manifestly exceeded its power on four accounts

Reading an implicit legality requirement into the BIT is not untenable

Legal findings won’t be annulled if they are “reasonably tenable” – even jurisdictional findings

Failure to challenge alternative reasonings to decline jurisdiction doomed annulment request

Claimants did not bring independent claims with respect to other alleged investments

Annulment not a proper remedy to correct alleged failure to decide a question