 |
| 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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Number of search results per page 10 | 25 | 50
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Awards and Decisions: investors M |
Displaying 1 to 25 of 28 |
 |
| 1. |
MCI Power Group LC and New Turbine Inc v Ecuador, Decision on Annulment, ICSID Case No ARB/03/6; IIC 396 (2009), despatched 19 October 2009  (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
|
| 2. |
MCI Power Group LC and New Turbine Inc v Ecuador, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/03/6; IIC 296 (2007), signed 26 July 2007 despatched 31 July 2007 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Arbitral rules & institutions – Parallel proceedings – Fork in the road clause – Applicable law – Choice of law – International law, general principles – Relationship of international law & host state law – Investment – Investment defined in treaties – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Relevant date (and jurisdiction) – Time limitations (and jurisdiction) – Standards of treatment – Arbitrary (unreasonable) & discriminatory treatment standard – Fair and equitable treatment standard – Full protection and security – Good faith – Most-favoured-nation treatment (MFN) – Expropriation – Treaties, interpretation – Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Core issue(s): 1. The extent to which a Tribunal could consider events that occurred prior to a treaty entering into force, given the principle
of the non-retroactivity of treaties.
2. Whether the existence of domestic court proceedings prior to the entry into force of the Bilateral Investment Treaty (Ecuador/United
States) triggered the ‘fork in the road’ mechanism.
3. Whether: (a) Ecuador violated the standards of fair and equitable treatment in breach of Article II(3)(a) of the US-Ecuador
BIT; (b) Ecuador displayed discriminatory and arbitrary behaviour in breach of Article II(3)(b) of the US-Ecuador BIT; and
(c) Ecuador's actions amounted to expropriation in violation of Article III(1) of the US-Ecuador BIT.
4. Whether, in particular, revocation of an operating licence relating to the operation of electricity plants previously sold
amounted to an expropriation.
5. Whether, in particular, Ecuador's actions in seeking and obtaining annulment of the domestic lawsuit filed by Seacoast amounted
to a breach of the US-Ecuador BIT.
|
| 3. |
MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile SA v Chile, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/01/7; IIC 174 (2004), signed 25 May 2004 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Arbitrators – Replacement of arbitrator – Claims – Umbrella clause – Standards of treatment – Arbitrary (unreasonable) & discriminatory treatment standard – Due process – Fair and equitable treatment standard – Good faith – Legitimate expectations – Most-favoured-nation, substantive matters – Transparency – Expropriation – Indirect expropriation – Investment-backed expectations (expropriation and) – Treaties, interpretation – Object & purpose (treaty interpretation and) – Rules of treaty interpretation – Travaux préparatoires – Remedies and costs – Costs and expenses – Interest, compound/simple
Core issue(s): Whether Chile violated its substantive obligation to accord fair and equitable treatment to MTD.
|
| 4. |
MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile SA v Chile, Decision on Annulment, ICSID Case No ARB/01/7, IIC 177 (2007), signed 16 February 2007 despatched 21 March 2007 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Review of arbitral awards
|
| 5. |
MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile SA v Chile, Decision on the Respondent's Request for a Continued Stay of Execution, ICSID
Case No ARB/01/7, IIC 175 (2005), signed 01 June 2004 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Enforcement
|
| 6. |
Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn Bhd v Malaysia, Decision on the Application for Annulment, ICSID Case No ARB/05/10; IIC 372
(2009), signed 28 February 2009 despatched 16 April 2009 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
|
| 7. |
Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn Bhd v Malaysia, Award on jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/05/10; IIC 289 (2007), signed 10 May 2007 despatched 17 May 2007 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Claims – Contract claims – Treaty claim – Umbrella clause – Investment – Investment defined in contract – Investment defined in treaties – Investment defined in tribunal practice – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Subject matter of the dispute (and jurisdiction)
Core issue(s): Whether the contract, on which the claim was based, was an investment in the meaning of Article 25(1) of the Convention on
the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, as well as under the BIT, establishing
the Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider the claims.
|
| 8. |
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
|
| 9. |
Merrill & Ring Forestry LP v Canada, Award, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 427 (2010), signed 31 March 2010 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Specialized treaty frameworks – NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) – Standards of treatment – Fair and equitable treatment standard – National treatment – Performance requirements – Remedies and costs – Damages
|
| 10. |
Metalclad Corp v Mexico, Review by the supreme court of British Columbia, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/97/1; IIC 162 (2001), despatched 02 May 2001 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Review of arbitral awards – Public policy (Canada, Standard of Review) – Applicable law – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Standard of review – Standards of treatment – International minimum standard – Transparency – Expropriation – Indirect expropriation – Treaties, interpretation
Core issue(s): 1. Whether the dispute was a ‘commercial’ dispute that was governed by the International Commercial Arbitration Act.
2. Whether the Court should have taken the ‘pragmatic and functional approach’ of the Supreme Court of Canada to determine the
proper standard of review.
3. Whether and to what extent the Arbitral Tribunal rendered an Award beyond the scope of its authority.
|
| 11. |
Metalclad Corporation v Mexico, Supplementary reasons for judgment, 2001 BCSC 1529; IIC 163 (2001), despatched 31 October 2001 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Review of arbitral awards – Appeal from award
Core issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court of British Columbia may have adjourned the proceedings in order to give the Tribunal an opportunity
to resume the arbitral proceedings for the purpose of determining whether there was a breach of Article 1105 or 1110 of the
North American Free Trade Agreement prior to the issuance of the Ecological Decree without regard to the concept of transparency
and thereby determining whether Metalclad was entitled to interest prior to 20 September 1997.
|
| 12. |
Metalclad Corp v Mexico, Award, Ad hoc—ICSID Additional Facility Rules; ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/97/1; IIC 161 (2000), signed 25 August 2000 despatched 30 August 2000 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Attribution – Actions of political subdivisions and attribution – Claims – Incidental & additional claims – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Standards of treatment – Fair and equitable treatment standard – Legitimate expectations – Transparency – Expropriation – Indirect expropriation – Treaties, interpretation – Remedies and costs – Discounted cash flow (DCF), anticipated future profits – Valuation
Core issue(s): Whether Mexico breached Articles 1105 (fair and equitable treatment) and Article 1110 (expropriation) of the North American
Free Trade Agreement when, despite the fact that the Federal Government had granted a permit for the construction of the investor's
hazardous waste disposal landfill and represented that no further license would be required, the municipal authorities declined
a second permit and declared the area to be an ecological preserve.
|
| 13. |
Metalpar SA and Buen Aire SA v Argentina, Award on the Merits, ICSID Case No ARB/03/5; IIC 326 (2008), signed 06 June 2008 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Evidence – Production of documents – Witnesses – Attribution –
Ultra Vires conduct, necessity, emergency – Standards of treatment – Fair and equitable treatment standard – Non-discrimination – Expropriation – Expropriation of contract rights – Investment-backed expectations (expropriation and)
Core issue(s): 1. Whether Argentina expropriated the claimants’ investment.
2. Whether Argentina violated the obligation under the Treaty for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (Argentina/Chile)
to provide fair and equitable treatment.
3. Whether Argentina’s action was justified by a state of necessity.
4. Whether Argentina was responsible for the damages suffered by the claimants.
|
| 14. |
Metalpar SA y Buen Aire SA v Argentina, Decision on jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/03/5; IIC 164 (2006), signed 27 April 2006 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Preliminary proceedings – Exhaustion of local remedies – Admissibility – Claims – Direct claims – Indirect claims – Investment – Investment ‘in accordance with host state law’ – Investor – Indirect ownership – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Consent to jurisdiction through treaties – Treaties, interpretation – Good faith
Core issue(s): 1. Whether the claimants were ‘foreign investors’.
2. Whether the claim involved a legal dispute.
3. Whether the claim arose directly out of an investment.
4. Whether the claim was a contractual dispute.
5. Whether Argentina consented to the arbitration.
|
| 15. |
Methanex Corporation v United States, Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 167 (2005), signed 03 August 2005 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Arbitral rules & institutions – UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules – Specialized treaty frameworks – NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) – Arbitrators – Challenge to appointment of arbitrator – Replacement of arbitrator – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Subject matter of the dispute (and jurisdiction) – Standards of treatment – Fair and equitable treatment standard – International minimum standard – National treatment – Expropriation
Core issue(s): 1. Whether a sufficient legal relationship existed between Methanex and the Californian measures under Article 1101 of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (‘NAFTA’), and therefore, whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case.
2. Whether Californian measures regarding MTBE were aimed at protecting domestic industries rather than protecting public health
and environment and if so, whether the United States had violated its obligations under Articles 1102—National Treatment—by
not according foreign methanol producers the same treatment as domestic ethanol producers ‘in like circumstances’; 1105—Minimum
Standard of Treatment—by issuing measures intended to discriminate against foreign investors and investments; or 1110 of the
NAFTA—Expropriation—by taking a ‘measure tantamount to expropriation’ by diverting a market to domestic ethanol producers.
|
| 16. |
Methanex Corporation v United States, Partial award, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 166 (2002), signed 07 August 2002 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Arbitral rules & institutions – UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules – Specialized treaty frameworks – NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) – Admissibility – Existence of a legal interest by the claimant (and admissibility) – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Standard of review – Subject matter of the dispute (and jurisdiction)
Core issue(s): 1. Whether Methanex had sufficiently established that the measures in dispute were ‘relating to’ the investor or its investment
as required by Article 1101 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (‘NAFTA’) and therefore whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction.
2. Whether the Tribunal had the power to decide on admissibility claims.
3. Whether, and under which conditions, Methanex was allowed to amend its claims.
4. Whether a Tribunal had the power to order intervening NAFTA Parties under Article 1128 of the NAFTA to disclose documents.
|
| 17. |
Methanex Corporation v United States, Decision on Amici Curiae, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 165 (2001), signed 15 January 2001 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Arbitral rules & institutions – UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules – Specialized treaty frameworks – NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) – Confidentiality and privilege – Conduct of proceedings – Third party proceedings
Core issue(s): 1. Whether private third (ie non-North American Free Trade Agreement (‘NAFTA’)) parties could file an amicus brief after reading
the parties' pleadings.
2. Whether private third (ie non-NAFTA) parties could make oral submissions.
3. Whether private third (ie non-NAFTA) parties could have observer status.
|
| 18. |
Micula and ors v Romania, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ICSID Case No ARB/05/20; IIC 339 (2008), signed 24 September 2008 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Admissibility – Hypothetical case and (and admissibility) – Nationality of the claimant (and admissibility) – Investor – Genuine and effective link, doctrine of – Nationality of investor, individuals – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Consent to jurisdiction – Parties to the dispute (and jurisdiction) – Time limitations (and jurisdiction) – Remedies and costs – Restitution
Core issue(s): 1. Whether the individual claimants had demonstrated their Swedish nationality.
2. Whether the test of effective or dominant nationality in Nottebohm ( Liechtenstein v Guatemala ) applied in the context of
an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes proceeding.
3. If the effective nationality test applied, whether the claimants could invoke Swedish nationality in a claim against Romania.
|
| 19. |
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.
|
| 20. |
Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co SA v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/99/6; IIC 169 (2002), signed 12 April 2002 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Evidence – Admissibility of evidence – Burden of proof – Applicable law – Relationship of international law & host state law – Investment – Investment defined in treaties – Standards of treatment – Administrative irregularity – Fair and equitable treatment standard – Full protection and security – Expropriation – Creeping expropriation – Takings, legal and illegal (confiscatory measures) – Remedies and costs – Damages – Interest, compound/simple
Core issue(s): Whether the conduct of Egypt, depriving the claimant of its license to export and store cement as well as seizing and auctioning
its assets in Egypt, constituted a measure tantamount to expropriation under Greece-Egypt BIT.
|
| 21. |
Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co SA v Egypt, Decision on jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/99/6, IIC 311 (2000), signed 27 November 2000 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals
|
| 22. |
Mihaly International Corporation v Sri Lanka, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/00/2; IIC 170 (2002); (2002) ICSID Rev—Foreign Investment
L J 142, despatched 15 March 2002 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Applicable law – International law, sources – Claims – Assignment of claims – Investment – Investment defined in treaties – Investor – Nationality of investor, corporations – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals
Core issue(s): 1. Whether claims under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Convention (‘ICSID Convention’) were assignable
for the purpose of establishing a claimant-assignee's standing.
2. Whether pre-investment expenditures were protected under the ICSID Convention and under the US-Sri Lanka BIT.
|
| 23. |
Millicom International Operations BV and Sentel GSM SA v Senegal, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/08/20; IIC 450
(2010), signed 16 July 2010 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Investment – Investor – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Consent to jurisdiction – Subject matter of the dispute (and jurisdiction)
|
| 24. |
Mitchell v Congo, the Democratic Republic of the, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award, ICSID Case No ARB/99/7;
IIC 172 (2006), signed 27 October 2006 despatched 01 November 2006 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Review of arbitral awards – Annulment (ICSID) – Grounds for annulment – Failure to apply applicable law – Failure to state reasons – Manifest excess of power – Investment – Investment defined in treaties – Investment defined in tribunal practice – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals – Treaties, interpretation
Core issue(s): 1. Whether an ad hoc Committee had the power under Article 52(1)(e) of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes
Between States and Nationals of Other States (18 March 1965) 575 UNTS 159, entered into force 14 October 1966 (‘ICSID Convention’)
to reassess the Tribunal's reasoning in the Award.
2. Whether, in order to qualify as an investment within the meaning of the ICSID Convention and the applicable BIT, an operation
should contribute to the economic development or at least the interests of the host state.
|
| 25. |
Mitchell v Congo, the Democratic Republic of the, Decision on the stay of enforcement of the award, ICSID Case No ARB/99/7,
IIC 171 (2004), signed 30 November 2004 (free)
Content set: Awards & Decisions
Keyword(s): Arbitral rules & institutions – Conduct of proceedings – Review of arbitral awards – Annulment (ICSID) – Stay of enforcement – Applicable law – Claims
Core issue(s): Whether an ad hoc committee should grant a stay of enforcement of an award and the posting of a guarantee when a party requested
the annulment of the award.
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
| Sign Up for
Alerts |
|
| Receive free
updates on Investment Claims by
email or RSS. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
