It was within the tribunal mandate to adopt a “practical” solution on interest, in a context where claimant’s original claim could not be satisfied

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.

State’s quantum argument was dismissed implicitly, as a result of tribunal’s decision to follow a different valuation method

No contradiction in finding that investor had suffered damages despite the investment growing in value

Tribunal did not order expropriation of the investment, but merely conditioned compensation on claimant relinquishing its shares in the investment

Parties did not waive future right to lodge treaty-based arbitration in pre-existing contract

Claimant ordered to bear costs of respondents not bound by arbitration clause

Discussion on applicability of res judicata doctrine is deferred to merits stage

Mr Zuleta would have delved further into scope of ESM’s contractual obligations

Challenges to exercise of sovereign powers fall outside of tribunal’s ratione materiae jurisdiction

Tribunal finds no ground to look into potential implicit consent to arbitration under Bolivian Arbitration Law

Dissenter proposes different approach to representation issue

Tribunal finds no element to consider that ESM acted on behalf of Bolivia

State’s overall involvement in the planning and implementation of the project does not make it a party to the Contract

State’s participation in joint venture contract only fulfilled a legal requirement

Contract leaves no space to consider Bolivia and state-owned company as ‘parties’

Background: Indian steel giant resorts to ICC arbitration following failure of mining joint venture with state-owned company

Award is set aside, as court finds confusion by arbitrators as to who was entitled to be reimbursed the guarantees’ amounts

Request for annulment before tribunal is belated

ESM’s pleas for clarification amounted to undue request for reconsideration

Interpretation and clarification is not meant to give a second bite at the cherry, as illustrated by fact that arbitrators can decline to interpret the award

No ground to “sanction” claimant’s procedural conduct as argued by the respondent, but costs are split

No evidence of additional damages beyond interest on guarantees’ amounts

Parties agreed in contract that guarantees should only be drawn on the basis of audited statements

JSB’s investment obligations were suspended pending ESM’s compliance with its own obligations

Claimant’s withdrawal from local proceedings does not mean that it lost the right to contest ESM’s calling on the guarantees

Archives