 |
| Subscriber Login: |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tell us about an award |
| Know of a new award? Tell
us about it. |
|
|
|
| You are here:
Home > Awards & Decisions by Investor
|
Awards and Decisions listed by Investor
Use the alphabet menu below to view a list of awards and decisions for investors beginning with a specific letter. Note that where there is more than one investor, only the lead investor is indexed alphabetically.
To display an award or decision, click on the linked title.
|
| |
|
|
|
Select a letter:
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
I
|
J
|
K
|
L
|
M
|
N
|
O
|
P
|
Q
|
R
|
S
|
T
|
U
|
V
|
W
|
X
|
Y
|
Z
| |
|
|
|
Number of search results per page 10 | 25 | 50
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Awards and Decisions: investors A |
Displaying 1 to 10 of 31 |
 |
| 1. |
ADC Affiliate Ltd and ADC & ADMC Management Ltd v Hungary, Final award on jurisdiction, merits and damages, ICSID Case No
ARB/03/16, IIC 1 (2006), signed 27 September 2006 despatched 02 October 2006  (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Arbitral rules & institutions – ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) – Applicable law – Investment – Claims – Contract claims – Investor – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Standards of treatment – Expropriation – Remedies and costs – Discounted cash flow (DCF), anticipated future profits
Core issue(s): 1. The applicable law and how it would be determined
2. The nationality of the investors and whether there was a qualifying investment
3. Whether there was expropriation
4. The standard of damages for an unlawful expropriation
5. The appropriate treatment of costs
|
| 2. |
ADF Group Inc v United States, Award, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/1; IIC 2 (2003), signed 06 January 2003 despatched 09 January 2003 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Applicable law – Customary international law – International law, general principles – Attribution – Ultra Vires conduct, state organs/state-owned enterprise – Claims – Investment – Public procurement – Investor – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Reservations and exceptions – Standards of treatment – Fair and equitable treatment standard – Most-favoured-nation treatment (MFN) – National treatment – Treaties, interpretation – Authority of previous decisions (precedents) – Good faith – Object & purpose (treaty interpretation and) – Official interpretations by the parties – Ordinary meaning (treaty interpretation and)
Core issue(s): Whether ‘Buy America’ requirements in state level procurement contracts contradicted the requirements of Chapter 11 of the
North American Free Trade Agreement.
|
| 3. |
ADF Group Inc v United States, Procedural Order No 2, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/01; IIC 3 (2001); 6 ICSID Rep 470, signed 11 July 2001 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Place of arbitration
Core issue(s): Whether Montreal or Washington DC should be the place of arbitration.
|
| 4. |
AES Corporation v Argentina, Decision on jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/02/17; IIC 4 (2005); 12 ICSID Rep 308, signed 26 April 2005 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Preliminary proceedings – Waiting period—negotiations – Conduct of proceedings – Precedent – Claims – Calvo clause – Investment – Investment defined in treaties – Investor – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Measure – Treaties, interpretation
Core issue(s): 1. Whether the Tribunal of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (‘ICSID’) had jurisdiction to hear
the case under Article 25 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other
States
2. Whether earlier decisions on jurisdiction in the Argentinean cases under the same Bi Lateral Investment Treaty had any relevance
or were precedents.
3. The extent to which specific contract forum selection clauses precluded ICSID arbitration.
|
| 5. |
AIG Capital Partners Inc and CJSC Tema Real Estate Company Ltd v Kazakhstan, Enforcement decision, (2005) EWHC 2239 (Comm);
IIC 9 (2005), signed 20 October 2005 despatched 20 October 2005 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Enforcement – Enforcement in domestic courts
Core issue(s): Whether funds of the national oil reserve of Kazakhstan held via Kazakh central bank accounts were ‘property of a State's
central bank’ for the purposes of the State Immunity Act 1978 and immune from measures of execution in the English courts.
|
| 6. |
AMTO LLC v Ukraine, Final Award, SCC Case No 080/2005; IIC 346 (2008), signed 26 March 2008 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Specialized treaty frameworks – Claims – Investment – Investor – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Standards of treatment – ECT (Energy Charter Treaty) – Umbrella clause – Denial of benefits clause – Consent to jurisdiction – Subject matter of the dispute (and jurisdiction) – Time limitations (and jurisdiction) – Denial of justice – Fair and equitable treatment standard
|
| 7. |
AWG Group Ltd v Argentina, Procedural Order No 2, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, IIC 281 (2006), signed 03 August 2006 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Conduct of proceedings
|
| 8. |
AWG Group Ltd v Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, IIC 21 (2006), signed 03 August 2006 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Preliminary proceedings – Admissibility – Claims – Investment – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Treaties, interpretation
|
| 9. |
African Holding Company of America Inc (AHL) and the African Society of Construction in Congo (SARL) v Congo, the Democratic
Republic of the, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ICSID Case No ARB/05/21; IIC 332 (2008), signed 23 July 2008 despatched 29 July 2008 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
|
| 10. |
African Holding Company of America Inc, Settlement, Agreement, and Release, OPIC; IIC 5 (1998), signed 09 February 1998 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Claims – Assignment of claims – Contract claims – Conduct of proceedings – Settlement & discontinuance – Expropriation – Remedies and costs – Damages
Core issue(s): What level of damages was appropriate to compensate the African Holding Company of America, Inc for the taking and destruction
of tangible property owned by Copneuza as the result of civil disturbances in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
