Claim falls within 10-year window for bringing legacy claims under 1982 BIT

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.

Both the investment and the dispute already existed in October 2012, meaning that 1982 BIT remains applicable through 2007 TPA’s provision on succession of treaties

Tribunal sees investment dispute, rather than mere domestic dispute over land boundaries

Claimants proved prima facie BIT violations on the merits

Additional defense based on Saba Fakes ruling is rejected

Panama fails to rebut prima facie conclusion that claimants held rights over the Disputed Land

In the alternative, BIT also protects rights deriving from de facto possession of land

Prima facie, the claimants held ownership rights over the Disputed Land at a certain point in time

Both claimant’s modification of arguments after filing of notice of arbitration and respondent’s additional objections raised after bifurcation request are admissible

Tribunal addresses consequences of criminal judgment against one of the arbitrators; claimants confirm that they are not raising corruption claim

Background: Handling of landownership dispute by local authorities leads to treaty claim

Claimants ordered to bear ICSID costs and part of Panama’s legal costs

Lack of (illegitimate) sovereign action leads tribunal to dismiss claims on the merits

Commercial nature of claims and existence of contractual dispute resolution procedures does not constitute bar to jurisdiction

No evidence according to Panamanian law was adduced to prove corruption in the making of investment; tribunal saw no need to determine standard of proof of corruption or address requirement of express provision in BIT

Claimants failed to prove that criminal investigation into claimants and accompanying measures were illegitimate; tribunal finds red flags in claimants’ suspected transaction

Panama acted based on legitimate commercial reasons in terminating the project contracts due to claimants’ non-performance

Claimants’ case hinges on whether Panama acted as a sovereign or commercial party, and whether illegitimate police powers were engaged

Tribunal sees nexus requirement in BIT, but finds that alleged interference with contracts and criminal investigations are sufficiently linked with the investment

Background: Failure of construction projects and bribery investigations leads to ICSID arbitration

Rule 44 prevents tribunal from ruling on costs in an award

Claimant is ordered to bear full costs of the arbitration

Tribunal applies Rule 28(1) of the 2006 ICSID Arbitration Rules, and it decides that claimant’s procedural conduct warrants allocation of costs upon the investor

Background: Claim over investment in water treatment and purification venture was withdrawn within 10 months from the request for arbitration; claimant fails to make advance payment

Manifest excess of powers arguments require detailed assessment by the committee

Archives