Quick Search:
	Advanced Search

Awards and
Decisions

Treaties

Commentaries

Institutional
Rules

National
Arbitration Laws

Arbitrators and
Counsel

Awards and Decisions

List by Investor | List by Date | List by Host State | List by Subject

Subscriber Login:

User name:

Password:

Forgot Password?

If you have an Athens user name and password then please follow this Athens Authentication Point link in order to enter these.

Library card number:

Not Subscribed?

Find out more about Investment claims and how to subscribe.

Editors & Contributors

See information on the editorial board and contributors.

Tell us about an award

Know of a new award? Tell us about it.

You are here: Home > Awards & Decisions by Date

Awards and Decisions listed by Date

Awards and decisions are listed in reverse chronological order (from the current year, through to pre-2000).

Click on a year to view a list of awards and decisions from that year.

To display an award or decision, click on the linked title.

You need to enter your email address to access the PDF links below:
Before clicking 'Send', please read the Privacy Policy and Legal Notices. By clicking 'Send' you are agreeing to its terms.	Remember Me What's this?

Select a year:

Post 1999 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1990

Number of search results per page 10 | 25

Awards and Decisions: 1999	Displaying 1 to 10 of 13

1.	MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company (formerly CalEnergy Company, Inc), Memorandum of Determinations, OPIC; IIC 168 (1999), signed 01 November 1999 (free) Content set: Awards & Decisions Keyword(s): Arbitrators – Preliminary proceedings – Standards of treatment – Claims – Contract claims – Corruption claim – Direct claims – Expropriation – Expropriation of contract rights – Investment-backed expectations (expropriation and) – Police powers (expropriation and) – Regulatory expropriation (or regulatory taking) Core issue(s): 1. Whether MidAmerican Energy was entitled to compensation for expropriation under Section 4.01(a) of the OPIC Contracts because the Government of Indonesia had expropriated the project by depriving MidAmerican of its fundamental rights. 2. Whether MidAmerican was entitled to compensation for expropriation under Section 4.01(b) of the OPIC Contracts because Indonesia failed to honour the arbitral awards in accordance with international law.
2.	Maffezini v Spain, Procedural Order No 2, ICSID Case No ARB/97/7, IIC 84 (1999), signed 28 October 1999 (free) Content set: Awards & Decisions Keyword(s): Conduct of proceedings
3.	BRIDAS SAPIC and ors v Turkmenistan, Second Partial Award and Dissent, ICC Case No 9058/FMS/KGA, IIC 36 (1999), signed 21 October 1999 (free) Content set: Awards & Decisions Keyword(s): Arbitral rules & institutions – ICC (International Court of Arbitration) – Applicable law – Choice of law – Attribution – Claims – Contract claims – Incidental & additional claims – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Remedies and costs – Compensation – Costs and expenses – Damages – Interest Core issue(s): 1. Whether the acceptance by the Claimants of Turkmenistan’s repudiation gave rise to a new cause of action. 2. Whether the arbitrators’ declaration in the First Partial Award formed the foundation for jurisdiction to permit the Tribunal to address the Claimants’ damages claim. 3. Whether the parties conferred on the arbitrators the jurisdiction to address the Claimants’ damages claim.
4.	Azinian and ors v Mexico, Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/97/2; IIC 22 (1999), signed 18 October 1999 despatched 01 November 1999 (free) Content set: Awards & Decisions Keyword(s): Expropriation – Expropriation of contract rights – Standards of treatment – Denial of justice – Fair and equitable treatment standard Core issue(s): Whether the annulment of a concession contract may be considered to be an act of expropriation in violation of Articles 1105 and 1110 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (12 December 1992) US Gov't Printing Office (1992), entered into force 1 January 1994 (‘NAFTA’).
5.	Joseph Companies Inc of Minneapolis, Memorandum of Determinations, OPIC, IIC 146 (1999), signed 25 August 1999 (free) Content set: Awards & Decisions Keyword(s): Attribution – Investment – Expropriation
6.	Alliant Techsystems Inc, Memorandum of Determinations II, OPIC; IIC 13 (1999), signed 27 July 1999 (free) Content set: Awards & Decisions Keyword(s): Expropriation – Creeping expropriation Core issue(s): Whether measures taken by Ukraine constituted an expropriation of Alliant's investment.
7.	Marine Shipping Corporation, Memorandum of Determinations, OPIC, IIC 155 (1999), signed 02 July 1999 (free) Content set: Awards & Decisions Keyword(s): Expropriation – Remedies and costs – Compensation
8.	Wena Hotels Ltd v Egypt, Decision on jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/98/4; IIC 272 (1999), signed 29 June 1999 (free) Content set: Awards & Decisions Keyword(s): Admissibility – Existence of a legal interest by the claimant (and admissibility) – Nationality of the claimant (and admissibility) – Investor – Nationality of investor – Nationality of investor, corporations – Nationality of investor, shareholders – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Consent to jurisdiction – Standard of review – Treaties, interpretation – Rules of treaty interpretation Core issue(s): 1. Whether Article 8(1) of the Egypt-UK BIT operated to exclude International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes jurisdiction by requiring the United Kingdom company bringing the claim to be treated as an Egyptian national based on the company's ownership? 2. Whether Wena allegded a legal dispute between the parties as required by the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States?
9.	BRIDAS SAPIC and ors v Turkmenistan, First Partial Award and Dissent, ICC Case No 9058/FMS/KGA; IIC 35 (1999), signed 24 June 1999 (free) Content set: Awards & Decisions Keyword(s): Arbitral rules & institutions – ICC (International Court of Arbitration) – Attribution – State entities and attribution – Ultra Vires conduct, government function – Claims – Contract claims – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Parties to the dispute (and jurisdiction) – Remedies and costs – Compensation – Costs and expenses – Damages Core issue(s): 1. Whether the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to determine whether a party was a proper party to the arbitration and, if so, whether Turkemenistan was a proper party to the arbitration. 2. Whether Turkmenistan could rely on sovereign immunity and the act-of-state doctrine in the present proceedings. 3. Whether the conduct of Turkmenistan, Concern Turkmenneft, and Concern Balkannebitgazsenagat amounted to a repudiation of the contract and, if so, how damages ought to be calculated. 4. Whether the continued performance of the contract had been rendered impossible by virtue of a fundamental breach of the contract or other conduct on the part of BRIDAS SAPIC, BRIDAS Energy International Ltd, Intercontinental Oil & Gas Ventures Ltd, and BRIDAS Corporation.
10.	Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka AS v Slovakia, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/97/4; IIC 49 (1999), signed 24 May 1999 (free) Content set: Awards & Decisions Keyword(s): Attribution – Ultra Vires conduct, government function – Investment – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Consent to jurisdiction – Parties to the dispute (and jurisdiction) – Subject matter of the dispute (and jurisdiction) Core issue(s): 1. Whether the claimant was a national of a contracting state. 2. Whether there was a legal dispute arising out of an investment between those parties.


	1 2 Next

Receive free updates on Investment Claims by email or RSS.

page top

© Oxford University Press 2010. All rights reserved.	Privacy Policy & Legal Notice \| Credits