Objection of Ecuador to claimant’s request for restitution was not a “preliminary question”

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.

Petroecuador was not an indispensable party to the dispute, as it merely acted as Ecuador’s agent

Tribunal’s subject-matter jurisdiction under contracts covers economic dispute relating to performance of participation contracts

Perenco’s disputed BIT-protected investor status to be determined together with the merits

Provision aimed at defining foreign control for the purpose of Article 25(2)(b) ICSID Convention does not apply to entity incorporated in third state

Background: Dramatic rise in oil prices prompted respondent to impose levy on windfall profits, giving rise to ICSID claim

Court applies statutory interest rate post-judgment, rather than award rate

Stay pending resolution of outstanding tax dispute is inappropriate given “sense of urgency” conveyed by the ICSID Convention

Legal uncertainty created by domestic court decision militates against granting Ecuador’s setoff request

Court rules that examining disputed setoffs would require entering the merits of the dispute, and is thus prohibited in ICSID enforcement proceedings

Under the ICSID Convention, US courts can only verify the award’s authenticity

Background: Measures taken against windfall profits lead to ICSID award; damages are reduced by successful counterclaim and partial annulment

Ecuador bridles at tribunal’s ordering a state to refrain from collecting taxes

Tribunal distinguishes facts from those in Oxy dispute

Tribunal deemed provisional measures necessary in Perenco case

Alleged contradictions are resolved when looking at totality of the tribunal’s reasoning

Rulings on double recovery with respect to counterclaims are no manifest excess of powers

Tribunal could adopt its own interpretation of “amply debated” issue

Manifest excess of powers does not allow for de novo review of jurisdictional findings

Tribunal’s identification of a but-for scenario necessarily involved a certain margin of discretion

No excess of powers, as the tribunal correctly identified the applicable law

Parties could not validly agree to obscure the tribunal’s reasoning

Decision on interest is “circumscribed by the parties’ requests”

Background: Annulment decision comes after 13 years of proceedings

Invoking discretion on loss of opportunity is not enough to assess damages for loss of opportunity

Archives