Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 6 - Shareholders’ Claims for Reflective Loss and the Dangers of Parallel Proceedings

  • Lukas Vanhonnaeker, McGill University, Montréal
  • Book:
    Shareholders' Claims for Reflective Loss in International Investment Law
    Published online:
    13 July 2020
    Print publication:
    16 July 2020, pp 206-237

  • Summary

    This chapter analyses what is probably the biggest concern raised by shareholders’ claims for reflective loss: parallel proceedings and the risks they engender such as inconsistent decisions and double recovery. Parallel proceedings, which can lead to double recovery and inconsistent or contradictory decisions, can severely impact the legitimacy of international investment arbitration by creating uncertainty, inconsistency, and unfairness. This chapter scrutinizes the different types of parallel proceedings to which shareholders’ claims for reflective loss can lead. It also undertakes an in-depth analysis of the dangers created by parallel proceedings. Finally, this chapter focuses on a specific instance of parallel proceedings involving proceedings before domestic courts and international courts or tribunals. In particular, it is explained why traditional claim-limiting provisions found in international investment agreements are of limited practical use in the context of shareholders’ claims for reflective loss.