Unhelpful to use other BITs to interpret the BIT at issue

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 argues that carve-out for certain indirect investments only applies to third-country intermediaries

Port mechanization project faced numerous problems, including labour disputes and disagreement over cargo allocation

Rejecting claimant’s view, tribunal finds treaty text unambiguous

Jurisdictional decision and final award are released following FOI request

MFN clause cannot expand jurisdiction, since it only applies once jurisdiction is found

Claimant is permitted to re-file claims in light of jurisdictional ruling

Waiting periods are jurisdictional; only excuse is futility

Claimant made good faith efforts towards prior settlement, including entreaties from French ambassador

Treaty does not impose six-month negotiation period

No targeting by other state organs; FET claim fails

Investor alleges range of misconduct amounting to FET breach

Costs largely favour India, but with discount for disproportionate defence bill

No FPS breach; tribunals must be ‘wary of second-guessing’ state judgment calls on security threats

Investor reformulates claims to allege intentional conspiracy to oust it from Haldia port

Port mechanization project faced numerous problems, including labour disputes and disagreement over cargo allocation

Precise shareholding makes all the difference to BIT protection, in this case

Calcutta court denies anti-arbitration injunction sought on basis of parallel commercial arbitration

Unusual BIT provision rules out jurisdiction over LDA’s original claims, with no assistance from MFN clause

Tribunal permits investor to reformulate claims, distinguishing situation from HICEE v. Slovakia

India requests PCA not to appoint arbitrator in deference to parallel commercial arbitration – but proceeds to make its own (belated) appointment

Counterclaim left unaddressed

No discrimination against protected investment

Tribunal rejects partial expropriation theory; investment remained a ‘going concern’

Archives

Unhelpful to use other BITs to interpret the BIT at issue

Claimant argues that carve-out for certain indirect investments only applies to third-country intermediaries

Port mechanization project faced numerous problems, including labour disputes and disagreement over cargo allocation

Rejecting claimant’s view, tribunal finds treaty text unambiguous

Jurisdictional decision and final award are released following FOI request

MFN clause cannot expand jurisdiction, since it only applies once jurisdiction is found

Claimant is permitted to re-file claims in light of jurisdictional ruling

Waiting periods are jurisdictional; only excuse is futility

Claimant made good faith efforts towards prior settlement, including entreaties from French ambassador

Treaty does not impose six-month negotiation period

No targeting by other state organs; FET claim fails

Investor alleges range of misconduct amounting to FET breach

Costs largely favour India, but with discount for disproportionate defence bill

No FPS breach; tribunals must be ‘wary of second-guessing’ state judgment calls on security threats

Investor reformulates claims to allege intentional conspiracy to oust it from Haldia port

Port mechanization project faced numerous problems, including labour disputes and disagreement over cargo allocation

Precise shareholding makes all the difference to BIT protection, in this case

Calcutta court denies anti-arbitration injunction sought on basis of parallel commercial arbitration

Unusual BIT provision rules out jurisdiction over LDA’s original claims, with no assistance from MFN clause

Tribunal permits investor to reformulate claims, distinguishing situation from HICEE v. Slovakia

India requests PCA not to appoint arbitrator in deference to parallel commercial arbitration – but proceeds to make its own (belated) appointment

Counterclaim left unaddressed

No discrimination against protected investment

Tribunal rejects partial expropriation theory; investment remained a ‘going concern’

Email Alerts

Editor’s Picks

User Login:

Email Alerts

Editor’s Picks