Dissenter would have awarded up to 20 million USD in damages (including moral damages), plus interest

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.

Dissenter emphasizes that the state’s police powers are not illimited, and sees breaches of the FET standard

Dissenter opines that Panama’s failure to engage in amicable negotiations amounted to a breach of due process

Tribunal declines to order interest on costs, finding that this claim was submitted belatedly

Tribunal examines in detail if the respondent’s costs are within reason, and awards Panama 2/3 of its reasonable costs

Expropriation claim is rejected; even if duty to pay compensation qualified as condition of lawfulness for regulatory takings, this condition would be fulfilled

Claimant’s calculation of damages was unconvincing

Actions by the Superintendency and the liquidation committee did not amount to harassment or bullying of claimant

Arbitrators decline to decide whether MST protects legitimate expectations, deciding that no breach of such expectations occurred in any event

Majority sees no lack of transparency or arbitrariness in the regularization process

Liquidation decision was neither arbitrary, nor disproportionate

Temporary administration was not disproportionate, since it was carried out in good faith and adequately tailored to protect the insurance market

Tribunal majority sees no arbitrariness or violation of due process in the temporary administration process

FET standard protects investors against arbitrariness, lack of due process, and harassment; tribunal cannot act as an appeals mechanism to challenge administrative conduct

Conduct of interim administrators and liquidators can be attributed to Panama under Article 5 of the ILC Articles

Superintendency qualifies as a state organ

Tribunal sees abuse of process neither in claimant’s failure to challenge the contested measures in domestic courts, nor in Mr. Castillo’s procedural conduct during the arbitration

Increase from 62.5% to 100% in claimant’s shareholding does not amount to an abuse of process

Allegations of abuse of process must meet a high burden of proof; no indication that the claimant acquired Dominican nationality with the purpose of gaining access to BIT arbitration

Dispute giving rise to the arbitration claim arose after the claimant acquired Dominican nationality

The claimant’s nationality at the time when the investment was made is irrelevant

Tribunal sees no reason to restrict the BIT’s temporal scope to disputes that occurred after Panama was informed of the claimant’s Dominican nationality

Only illegal acts that occurred during the making of the investment can render a claim inadmissible – and no such acts have been proved

Territoriality requirement is fulfilled

Tribunal is unconvinced that Salini test applies to non-contractual investments outside the ICSID context, but finds that the test is met in any event

Archives