ICSID Arbitration Rules do not set blanket protection of private information

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.

Comparison of procedural calendars under different scenarios provides good benchmark for decision on procedural efficiency of bifurcation

Tribunal majority considers that preliminary objections do not meet high standard set for bifurcation

Argentina’s reservation of right to raise further preliminary objections impacts standard for bifurcation

Joining objections to the merits is in the interest of procedural efficiency

Local litigation objection does not meet heightened substantiveness requirement

Alleged illegality of Integral Agreements, even if proved, would not be sufficient to put an end to the claim

Argument that claims are purely contractual in nature is linked with the merits and ignores distinction between treaty claims and contract claims

Tribunal identifies test for bifurcation under 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules; Argentina’s reservation of right to raise additional jurisdictional objections weakens its case on bifurcation

Background: Argentina asks for bifurcation in highway dispute stemming from state’s alleged violation of previous settlement agreement

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

Archives