State did not mislead tribunal by failing to reveal conditional fee arrangement when seeking costs

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.

Claimant’s failure to air grounds against enforcement of award at earlier set-aside stage is an abuse of process

No breach of natural justice as parties had opportunity to debate key findings of the tribunal

Arbitral tribunals had to interpret their power to accept new evidence – and this interpretation is not open to review

Background: Investors challenge awards that dismissed claims on bases of bad faith and illegalities

State’s costs can be reimbursed, even if no claim has been raised against it

Few claims not barred by collateral estoppel are dismissed on the merits

Henderson v. Henderson principle does not apply as claims could not have been raised earlier

Objection based on

Allegations of “new evidence” should explain why that evidence was not presented to earlier tribunal

Dissents are not equivalent to a decision

Standard for full and fair opportunity to contest prior action is equivalent to the concept of due process in annulment or set aside proceedings

Tribunal applies New York-law on collateral estoppel, barring most claims

No ground to apply adverse inferences, as state was not precluded from deleting relevant data before dispute started

No privilege without explanation of why it applies in this case

Background: multi-forum, decade-long dispute over divestment of casino assets

Costs should have been split, dissenter said

Ms. Lamm sees no fraud under New York law

Dissenter finds that investors’ obligations were suspended while they sought revival of treaty arbitrations

Costs follow the event, especially in view of the investors’ fraud on the tribunal

Counterclaims are not made out, as Laos took reasonable steps in view of the investors’ lack of cooperation

Untrue claim and defence constitute a fraud on the tribunal

Deed was likely fraudulently induced, but damages are not made out

Investors’ obligations under the Deed were not suspended by alleged breach

Applicable law does not include international law

Archives