While claimant sees expropriation in fact that its investment has been entirely deprived of value, Canada sees only normal operation of its legal framework

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.

Canada stresses importance of environmental and climate change policies in environmental review

Claimant argues that Canada breached due process and acted discriminatorily when “moving the goalposts” of the environmental review

While claimant alleges that other projects benefitted from more favourable treatment, Canada stresses different circumstances

Investor stresses compliance with all explicit jurisdictional requirements of USMCA

Canada argues that NAFTA legacy investment claims mechanism does not allow for arbitration over acts taking place after NAFTA was terminated

(Contested) Background: Gas liquefaction facility project is vetoed over environmental concerns

Objection over failure to file waivers found to be procedurally efficient to bifurcate

Objection that USMCA legacy investment provision only applies if contested facts pre-date NAFTA’s termination in July 2020 is serious and should be bifurcated

Tribunal relies on 2022 ICSID Rules test for bifurcation, but finds guidance in case law

Background: Mexico asks for bifurcation; claimant withdraws certain claims

While Mexico prevailed, the state’s procedural misconduct should be taken into account in apportioning costs

NAFTA’s Article 1116 does not allow claims for reflective losses

All remaining claimants qualify as investors, even if they disposed of their share before filing the case or held them indirectly

The centre of gravity of both claimants’ activities points toward their dominant and effective nationalities being Mexican, as illustrated by their roles at the highest echelons of the state’s political and business life

Dominant and effective nationality test applies under NAFTA, as confirmed by agreement of all three NAFTA states

While NAFTA considers permanent residents as nationals, it provides no particular rule on claims by dual nationals

Other treaties and precedents have limited value in steering the tribunal’s interpretation

Assessment of the evidence on allegations of corruption cannot be reduced to a single standard, but “compelling and particularized evidence” is needed

Background: Mexican bankruptcy proceedings follow cancellation of oil rig leasing contracts and prompt NAFTA claim

UNCITRAL tribunal issues procedural orders on NAFTA Article 1128 and a request for exclusion of a witness statement by a government employee

Tribunal sees confirmation for its finding in the fact that ICSID’s Secretary-General acted diligently in this case

Breach of timeframe for constituting NAFTA consolidation tribunal does not necessarily entail that tribunal lacks jurisdiction

Claimant is not prevented from raising timeliness objection based on principles of estoppel and good faith

Background: Claimant objects to timeliness of formation of NAFTA consolidation tribunal

Archives