No evidence that Libya’s Ministry of Justice was properly served before it lodged the set-aside proceedings

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.

Period elapsed since first confirmation of award is a reasonable amount of time

Appeals court sees no ground to deny confirmation of arbitral awards

Libya’s conduct during arbitration confirms agreement to submit arbitrability issues to tribunal’s jurisdiction

Appeals court confirms lower court’s decision on Libya’s forum non conveniens motion

Libya’s signing of the BIT is “clear and unmistakable” evidence of state’s consent to submit issues of arbitrability to arbitral tribunal

Libya’s argument on alleged lack of arbitration agreement was brought for the first time in the enforcement proceedings

Conditions to formation of arbitration agreement must be expressed in clear language

Libya’s challenge pertains to validity of the arbitration agreement, not its formation

Background: Cypriot investor secures 18.2 million EUR ICC award for interferences with a dairy farm and failure to secure indemnification before local courts

No breach of FPS standard, but impairment of investment

No fork-in-the-road in the BIT

Libyan dairy factory is expropriated shortly after construction, and investor fails to obtain compensation from domestic courts

ICC Rules – and rights and obligations under them – are incorporated in the arbitration agreement, thus leading tribunal to issue interim award ordering Libya to bear its share of advance on costs

Breaches are the proximate cause of investor’s underperformance

No compound interest on sums awarded, while Libya is ordered to bear most of Olin’s costs

Damages also discounted on account of civil war

DCF method is adopted, but future losses too speculative given Libya’s turmoil

“Fraud” is unproven; no treaty-shopping when investment made before BIT’s signature

Jurisdiction ratione personae: no “genuine link” criterion in the BIT

Cooling-off period was futile due to Libyan crisis

No abuse of rights when claimant was entitled to start arbitral proceedings

Counterclaims of abuse and harm to the state’s reputation are unsubstantiated

Investor was discriminated against, compared to national competitors

No denial of justice, bribe allegation unsubstantiated

Archives