Arbitration — International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes — Jurisdiction — Respondent not participating in composition of Tribunal — Respondent made aware of Request for Arbitration — Whether Tribunal validly constituted — Whether objection to jurisdiction could be made at hearing

Foreign investment — Indirect investment — Investment indirectly controlled by US company — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction under Bilateral Investment Treaty

Expropriation — Measures tantamount to expropriation — Claimants physically and forcibly dispossessed of property

Damages — Calculation of damages — Recovery of expenses — Interest on expenses — Loss of profits — Whether discounted cash flow analysis appropriate where no ongoing project — Whether loss of opportunity payable on total projected investment or amount actually invested — Whether difference between total projected investment and amount actually invested should be set off against award of compensation

Interest — Rate of interest — Claim resisted on grounds which did not succeed — Whether compound interest payable — Costs

Award — Arbitration — International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes — ICSID Convention, Article 55 — Application for enforcement of arbitration award in United Kingdom courts — Order against assets — Central bank of foreign State — State immunity — Whether property of central bank immune from enforcement proceedings — United Kingdom State Immunity Act 1978, Sections 13(2)(b) and 14(4) — Interpretation of Section 14(4) — Whether contrary to right of access to a court — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 6(1) — United Kingdom Human Rights Act 1998, Section 3(1) — Whether contrary to right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions — First Protocol to European Convention, Article 1

Arbitration — Award — Energy Charter Treaty, 1994 (“Treaty”) — Foreign investment — Claimant investing in Latvia through its subsidiary — Latvian energy policy — Latvian law providing for payment of double tariff — Contract between subsidiary and State organ — Change of domestic law — Whether subsidiary having statutory and contractually established right to double tariff — Whether Latvian courts having exclusive jurisdiction over dispute — Claimant claiming for non-payment of double tariff — Claimant alleging breach of obligations under Treaty by Respondent — Whether Respondent liable under Treaty for losses or damages incurred by Claimant

Jurisdiction — Energy Charter Treaty, 1994, Article 26 — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction to hear claims — Whether Claimant investor’s claims directly related to an investment — Whether Claimant investor having cause of action under Treaty distinct from its subsidiary — Whether Respondent in breach of obligations under Treaty — Whether obligation under Treaty or international law to exhaust local remedies before requesting arbitration

Foreign investment — Environmental character — Claimant’s claims — State responsibility — Whether Respondent liable for Claimant’s claims — Whether non-payment caused directly by State or State organ — Whether action of State organ attributable to State — Whether non-payment constituting violation of obligation under Part III of Energy Charter Treaty — Whether non-payment of double tariff causing loss or damage to Claimant’s investment

Treaties — Energy Charter Treaty, 1994 — Whether violations of obligations under Part III of Treaty — Expropriation — Treaty Article 13 — Whether discriminatory measure — Treaty Article 10(1) — Applicability — Whether any limitations on scope of treaty provisions

Expropriation — Energy Charter Treaty, Article 13 — Indirect or “creeping” expropriation — Whether “regulatory takings” amounting to expropriation or equivalent of expropriation — Whether degree of possession taking sufficient to amount to expropriation or its equivalent

Discrimination — Energy Charter Treaty, Article 10 — Whether fair and equitable treatment afforded to Claimant’s investment — Evaluation by comparing “like with like” — Whether Claimant’s investment afforded same treatment as other comparable companies — Onus on Respondent to satisfy burden of proof

Damages — Legal principles of assessment — Compensating losses for violations of Energy Charter Treaty, Article 10 — Whether Treaty Article 13(1) principles applicable — Established principles of customary international law — International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Articles 34 and 35 — Whether restitution an appropriate remedy — Assessment of losses or damages by the Claimant — Payment of interest

Damages — Calculation of damages — Quantification of damages where insufficient or limited documentation submitted — Assessment on international law principles of causation, foreseeability and reasonableness — Basis for assessment

Interest — Energy Charter Treaty, Article 26(8) — Whether Claimant can claim contractual rates of interest — Interest under Treaty awarded as compensation related to Claimant’s compensation for losses

Costs — Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Article 41 — Payment by losing party of other party’s costs — Apportionment of costs — Whether losing party must compensate where other party’s costs excessive

Arbitration — Investment dispute — Enforcement of two guarantees — Claimant loaning monies to local statutory corporation — Respondent guaranteeing loans in 1990 and 1993 agreements — Loans for power station improvement project — Applicable law — Whether implied representation by Claimant that project viable and suitable — Whether Claimant owing duty of care to Respondent — Whether breach of duty of care — Whether inequality of bargaining power

Award — Stay of enforcement — Applicable standards — Interpretation — ICSID Convention, Article 52(5) — ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 54 — Merits of application — Catastrophic consequences — Recovery of payment — Prejudice to prospects of collecting Award — Provision of security

Annulment — Annulment of Award — Investment dispute — Whether serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure — Whether failure to state reasons — Whether Tribunal exceeding its powers

Interpretation — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(b), (d) and (e) — Whether Tribunal manifestly exceeding its powers — Whether serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure — Whether Award failing to state reasons on which based

Costs — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(e) — Whether applicable to costs — Allocation — Payment of legal expenses — Interest

Arbitration — ICSID Convention — Argentina–United States Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1991 (“BIT”) — Argentina gas industry privatization in 1992 — Foreign investment — Claimants investing in Transportadora de Gas del Sur (“TGS”) — Claimants satisfying requirements of BIT — Tax assessments by Argentine provinces — Claimants instituting arbitration proceedings — Tax matters — Article XII of BIT — Whether stamp taxes on operations of TGS expropriatory and illegal — Whether violating Argentine law — Whether violating international law — Whether violating obligations under BIT — Whether tax measures tantamount to expropriation of investment — New request for arbitration — Claimants alleging certain tariff and other financial measures implemented by Argentina affecting investment and contravening BIT — New request as ancillary claim to original claim — ICSID Convention, Article 46

Jurisdiction — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over investors’ claim — Whether investors demonstrating prima facie that adversely affected by Argentina’s tax measures — Whether tax assessments violating rights accorded to foreign investors under BIT — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction to consider matter under BIT — Matter before Argentine courts — Relevance — Tax assessments by Argentine provinces — Whether Argentina liable — General tax policies and arrangements of Argentina and its provinces — State sovereignty — State responsibility — Article XIII of BIT — State incurring responsibility and liability for unlawful acts of agencies and subdivisions under international law — International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility

Jurisdiction — Original claim — Competence — Admissibility of claims — Applicable provisions — Whether Claimants having status of protected investor — Jus standi — Whether shareholders might claim independently from corporation concerned even if not in majority or in control of company — Definition of investment under Article I(1) of BIT — Indirect damages — Extent of consent to arbitration of host State — Whether excluding tax matters — Whether present dispute arising directly out of investment — Whether Claimants having present interest to bring action under BIT — Whether investment agreement or authorization — Claim for protection under BIT against alleged expropriation representing specific dispute — Powers of Tribunal — Injunctive relief — Whether breach of contractual rights also contravention of treaty rights — Determination at merits phase — Whether conditions for “fork in the road” principle present

Jurisdiction — Ancillary claim — Whether Claimants protected investors under BIT — Jus standi — Definition of investment under Article I(1)(a) of BIT — Whether agreement allowing locally incorporated companies having “foreign control” to accede to ICSID arbitration — ICSID Convention, Article 25(2)(b) — Distinction between treaty-based claims and contract-based claims

Interpretation — ICSID Convention — Article I(1) of BIT — Meaning of “investment” — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 31 — Literal and purposive construction — NAFTA, Article 1139 — Whether extending to indirect investments — Whether minority and indirect shareholders having independent right of action separate from affected local company — Decisions of ICSID tribunals not binding precedents

Interpretation — ICSID Convention — Article 25(2)(b) — Meaning of “foreign control” — Bilateral investment treaty — Whether precluding Claimant from acceding to ICSID jurisdiction

Interpretation — ICSID Convention and bilateral investment treaty — Investment agreement — Whether share transfer agreement constituting investment agreement — Indemnity clause — Investment constituting various instruments

Arbitration — International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes — Ukraine–Lithuania Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1994 (“BIT”) — Claimant company established under laws of Lithuania — Claimant establishing wholly owned subsidiary under laws of Ukraine — Claimant investing in subsidiary — Claimant requesting arbitration — Whether actions of Respondent in breach of BIT

Provisional measures — Claimant requesting Tribunal to recommend provisional measures — ICSID Convention, Article 47 — Claimant requesting further provisional measures

Jurisdiction — Bifurcation of proceedings — Whether dispute within jurisdiction of ICSID and competence of Tribunal — Whether Claimant investor of Lithuania — Article 1(2)(b) of BIT — Whether Claimant established under laws of Lithuania — Whether Claimant national of another Contracting State — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether Claimant making investment in Ukraine in accordance with laws of Ukraine — Article 1(1) of BIT — Whether dispute arising directly from Claimant’s investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1)

Admissibility — Whether Claimant’s claim admissible — Consent to arbitration — Whether Claimant’s written consent satisfying requirements of ICSID Convention — Whether written consent proper and timely — Requirement to negotiate — Whether Respondent and Claimant “parties” to negotiation — Whether dispute subject of negotiation — Whether dispute sufficiently clearly defined for negotiation to occur at least six months prior to date upon which ICSID registered claim — Article 8 of BIT

Nationality — Control test — State of incorporation — Corporation controlled by nationals of host State — Piercing the corporate veil — ICSID Convention, Article 25

Foreign investment — Whether investment made in Ukraine — Definition of investment — Whether investment made in accordance with laws and regulations of Ukraine — Article 1(1) of BIT — Whether origin-of-capital requirement

Diplomatic protection — Claimant requesting diplomatic protection from Lithuanian Government — Whether inconsistent with Article 26 of ICSID Convention — Whether ICSID remedies exclusive — Proceedings suspended — Whether discontinuance of proceedings appropriate

NAFTA — Chapter 11 — Investor — Status of Claimant as investor — Party Investor owning or controlling an investment in a holding company registered in a non-Party State — Relevance — Whether Party Investor protected under Chapter 11

NAFTA — Chapter 11 — Article 1105 — Minimum standard of treatment — Whether Claimant’s investment rendered valueless — Standard of review — Whether Mexico violating Article 1105 — Sufficiency of evidence — Whether breach of contract rising to level of NAFTA violation — Mexico’s financial crisis — Whether failure to pay motivated by prejudice — Whether Mexican proceedings amounting to denial of justice

NAFTA — Chapter 11 — Article 1110 — Expropriation — Direct or indirect — Non-performance of a contractual obligation — Normal commercial risks — Whether Mexico violating Article 1110

Costs — Costs and expenses — Discretion of Tribunal — Outcome of proceedings — Other relevant factors

Arbitration — Claimants submitting Request for Arbitration — Argentina — United States Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1991 (“BIT”) — Whether Respondent breaching obligations under BIT — Additional Request for Arbitration — Relevance of Argentine domestic law — Difference between legal rights of Argentine companies and legal rights of indirect investors in those companies — Whether indirect investors having separate cause of action — Direct access to dispute settlement by investor in investor–State arbitration — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Claimants’ claims

Jurisdiction — Jus standi — Status of Claimants — Whether nationals of another Contracting State — Article 25(2)(b) of ICSID Convention — Scope ratione personae — Whether Claimants having requisite standing — Claimants not directly operating investments in Argentina — Claimants acting through local Argentine companies — Whether Claimants foreign investors for purposes of ICSID Convention and Argentina–United States Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1991

Jurisdiction — Investment dispute — Article 25(1) of ICSID Convention — Whether dispute arising directly out of a foreign investment — Interpretation — Shares in Licensee constituting investment within meaning of Article I(1)(a)(ii) of Argentina–United States Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1991 — Claimants’ claims based on alleged breaches of BIT

Jurisdiction — Written consent of parties — Article 25(1) of ICSID Convention — Whether parties submitting to Centre’s jurisdiction — Argentina — United States Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1991 — Articles VII(3) and (4) — Exhaustion of local remedies

Admissibility — Additional Request for Arbitration — Article VII(3) of BIT — Article 46 of ICSID Convention — Whether separate proceeding necessary for Additional Request — Relevance of negotiations between Licensees and Respondent

Costs — Tribunal’s fees and expenses — Legal representation — Reserved for subsequent determination

Arbitration — International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes — Turkey — United States Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1985 — Jurisdiction — Investment — What constitutes an investment — Contract — Existence of contract

Jurisdiction — Investment — Nexus between investment and dispute — Interpretation of contract — Whether dispute arising directly out of investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1)

Jurisdiction — Consent — Scope of consent — Notification under ICSID Convention, Article 25(4) — Whether creating obligations for Contracting State

Jurisdiction — Consent — Previously agreed upon dispute settlement procedure — Requirement of exhaustion — Presence of previously agreed upon dispute settlement procedure

Parties — Standing — Interest of entities — Nexus to one another — Whether entities legally linked to Turkey for purposes of contract and Bilateral Investment Treaty