Enforcing the award runs the risk of violating insolvency law principles, and may thus gravely prejudice Astaldi’s rights

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 authority is not estopped from contesting Astaldi’s quality as award-debtor, but this cannot serve as ground to contest stay of enforcement

Parallel Italian enforcement proceedings are no ground to stay set-aside proceedings in France

Claimant waived its right to complain of alleged procedural irregularities, given confession at hearing that the issue had been solved

Tribunal did not rule ultra petita and stated reasons

Lack of ruling by Dispute Board is an issue of admissibility, not of jurisdiction

Enforcement of award may seriously injure Todini’s rights

Dissenter found breaches of domestic law and would have awarded development costs and moral damages

Dissenter saw reason to favour claimant given Georgia’s “erratic behaviour”, using flexibility inherent in arbitration

Georgia was ordered to partially reimburse claimant’s legal costs, due to late jurisdictional objections

Majority declined jurisdiction over claim for development costs, finding no intellectual property amounting to an investment in Georgia

Tribunal justified reliance on ICSID case-law, and found deliberate omission of ‘investment’ definition in ICSID Convention

Georgian investment law contained consent to ICSID arbitration, tribunal held

Jurisdictional objections were raised with “extreme delay”, but tribunal agreed to hear them

Early pleadings were confused on jurisdiction, before Mihaly award prompted clearer objection from Georgia

Tribunal rejected claimant’s power to claim on behalf of its shareholders

Tribunal issued provisional measures, ordering domestic courts to suspend allegedly “collusive” proceedings

Claimant’s request that documents be withheld from the state is rejected

Co-arbitrators rejected Georgia’s challenge to claimant’s nominee, finding “casual, social acquaintance” with claimant’s witness insufficient to warrant the arbitrator’s disqualification

Background: Failed negotiations for hydroelectric power plant rehabilitation led to ICSID arbitration

Mr. Douglas reckons that the majority wrongly applied a strict liability approach to the umbrella clause

Dissenter opines that umbrella breach requires use or abuse of sovereign powers

Mr. Douglas opines that the tribunal majority has awarded damages twice for the same loss, and that risk of double recovery is not adequately mitigated by the claimants’ undertaking not to enforce both awards

Costs are split

Claimants are awarded simple interest

Archives