Tribunal takes no issue with beneficial ownership of investment – but claim fails due to lack of proof of contribution, duration, and risk

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.

Mr. Lalonde concluded that claimant had no knowledge of looming investor-state dispute when it was created, disagreeing with Ms. Stern’s finding

Corporate restructuring was not made in bad faith, Mr. Lalonde opined

Mr. Lalonde affirmed that claimant had made an investment, disagreeing with Mr. Park’s view on the question of “contribution”

Mr. Lalonde dissented on legal and factual grounds, affirming the tribunal’s jurisdiction

Costs were divided

Timing of the restructuring led Ms. Stern to find that it had been made in bad faith

Ms. Stern reckoned that the sole purpose of the claimant’s establishment was to attract protection under investment law

Mr. Park found that the claimant had not contributed to any of the components of the investment

For Mr. Park, jurisdiction ratione personae required an “active contribution” to the project

Object and purpose of the treaties calls for balanced approach to jurisdiction

Background: Dutch investor in Turkish power plant project lodges treaty arbitration over unfavourable legislative changes

Dissenter would have found attribution under Article 8

Losing party ordered to pay ICSID fees but each party bears its own costs

Several aspects of tribunal’s treatment of evidence questioned by Tulip

Annulment committee not convinced by Tulip’s allegations that tribunal’s evidence-handling justified annulment

Committee finds majority’s reasoning on attribution easy to follow

Committee rejects Tulip’s characterization that tribunal first rejected jurisdiction and then discussed merits anyway; no manifest excess of power found

Committee begins by interpreting Articles 48(1) and 48(3) of ICSID Convention, and clarifying when majority votes are needed

It’s the ultimate vote that matters in collegial adjudicative contexts – not how each arbitrator reasoned their way to the finish line

Archives