Tribunal hearing taximeter arbitration submits post-hearing questions to parties

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.

While claimants could have had a different case, their failure to bring these claims means that the tribunal should not rule on them

Majority should not have invoked groundless distinction between legal and factual determinations by domestic courts, dissenter holds

According to the dissenter, SEGOB violated Mexico’s domestic law when granting the investors’ permit in the first place

Claimants to be reimbursed 50% of their reasonable costs, but discrepancy with respondent’s costs weighs heavy on assessment of reasonableness

Mexico’s borrowing costs in USD reflects a commercially reasonable rate for pre- and post-award interest

Claimants’ historical tax liability must be subtracted from award’s amount

Tribunal majority cannot value loss of chance to pursue new projects on the basis of forecasts for projects whose demise was unrelated to the treaty breach

Discount rate factors in risk that regulator may refuse to renew the concession, meaning that forecasted term date should account for such renewal

Mere witness allegations that the claimants would have proceeded with a different approach to their operational costs cannot suffice as a basis to estimate cash flows in but-for scenario

Claimants’ strategic choices in entering the Mexican market did not contribute to the eventual demise of the investment

Planned expansion projects failed because of reasons unrelated to Mexico’s treaty breach

Mexico’s conduct can amount to a treaty breach even if there is no denial of justice by Mexican courts in related decisions

Despite several issues and inconsistent rulings, domestic court proceedings do not amount to denial of justice

Regulator’s decision to revoke investors’ operating permit can only be explained by political considerations, in breach of the FET standard

Judicial economy warrants focusing on alleged breaches of FET standard, which can prima facie be reviewed in line with Mexico’s articulation of that standard

Purely intra-USA transactions do not qualify as investment in Mexico

Mexico’s jurisdictional challenge to projected investment is admissible, despite having been raised after Partial Award on bifurcated jurisdictional issues

Proceedings involve several issues around evidence

Background: Claimants’ attempt to secure their own permit to operate Mexican casinos backfires after change in regulator’s direction

Ecuador’s other jurisdictional objections deemed closely related to the merits

Tribunal majority clarified the nature of the obligation to negotiate within the six-month period, viewing it as a “fundamental requirement” of jurisdiction

Majority found that six-month waiting period starts running only when claimant has alleged treaty breach per BIT’s definition of “investment dispute”

Notifications under Article 25(4) of ICSID Convention may not unilaterally modify treaty-based offer to arbitrate

Archives