Tribunal failed to allow submissions on effect of domestic legal opinion

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.

Fraport’s secondary claims for annulment, based on the tribunal’s alleged manifest excess of power and failure to state reasons, were rejected by the committee.

Majority held that Philippine authorities did not have secret shareholder agreements before them when deciding on prosecution

Linguistic differences were deemed irrelevant

Having concealed the shareholder agreements, Fraport could not invoke the Philippines’ inaction

Each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs; arbitration costs were split equally

Majority found that Fraport knowingly structured its investment so as to circumvent local law through secret shareholder agreements

In his dissent, Bernardo Cremades saw no breach of the ADL, pointed to respondent’s procedural bad faith, and argued that legality of investor conduct was a merits issue

Cancellation of airport concession led to ICSID arbitration

Tribunal majority deemed that the BIT’s definition of “investment” served as lex specialis with respect to the ICSID Convention

Majority pointed to investor obligations

No estoppel since government was unaware of secret shareholder agreements

Majority found that the legality requirement only applied to the establishment phase

Fraport’s conduct was deemed “egregious”

Respondent was ordered to produce documents from parallel ICC arbitration

Majority found implicit legality requirement in the BIT

Legality requirement applied whether or not the investment involved a direct agreement with the host state, said the majority

Tribunal majority found that Philippine Anti-Dummy Law was concerned with managerial control

Tribunal finds that it lacks jurisdiction over counterclaims submitted by the Philippines

The Philippines failed to provide ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of alleged corruption and fraud by Fraport

Tribunal finds insufficient evidence that Fraport knew of alleged misrepresentations by PIATCO in obtaining the concession

Fraport violated the Anti-Dummy Law at the time of its initial investment

BIT requirement that the investment be ‘accepted’ in accordance with host state law is a legality (and not an admittance) requirement

Schwartz says he saw no confidential info during brief time on the ICC case

Govt cites ‘presumption’ that Schwartz would have seen confidential info

Archives