Prominent Issues in Latin American Arbitration: Annulment, Multi -party Arbitrations ... ·...
Transcript of Prominent Issues in Latin American Arbitration: Annulment, Multi -party Arbitrations ... ·...
Prominent Issues in Latin American Arbitration: Annulment, Multi-party Arbitrations, Corruption and Fraud
Carolyn B. Lamm White & Case LLP April 12, 2012
White & Case 3
Finality is a hallmark of an ICSID Award
Finality is central to the ICSID system Article 53(1): “The award shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to
any appeal or any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention.”
Article 54(1): “Each Contracting State shall recognize an award … and enforce the pecuniary obligation imposed by that award … as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State.”
Annulment grounds are limited Article 52 (1): “Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in
writing addressed to the Secretary-General on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) that the Tribunal was not properly constituted;
(b) that the Tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers;
(c) that there was corruption on the part of a member of the Tribunal;
(d) that there has been a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure; or
(e) that the award has failed to state the reasons on which it is based.”
White & Case 4
Annulments in Latin America
Claimants
Peru
Honduras
Ecuador
Chile
Argentina
Applying Party
7
1
1
2
2
10
Applications
ICSID annulment from Latin America: 40% of total (58% of pending)
2*
0
0
0
0
3*
Annulled
3
1
1
1
1
4
Not Annulled
2
0
0
1
1
3
Pending
*Vivendi v. Argentina and CMS Gas Transmission v. Argentina: “Partial” Annulment
White & Case 5
Awards Annulled in 2010/2011
GLOBALLY: 4 of 11 | LATIN AMERICA: 2 OF 6
March 25, 2010: Rumeli Telekom v. Kazakhstan Not annulled
May 11: Transgabonais v. Gabon Not annulled
June 14: Helnan v. Egypt Partially annulled
June 29: Sempra v. Argentina Annulled
July 30: Enron v. Argentina Annulled
Aug. 10: Vivendi v. Argentina II Not annulled
Dec. 10: Vieira v. Chile Not annulled
Dec. 23: Fraport v. Philippines Annulled
March 1, 2011: Duke v. Peru Not annulled
Sept. 6: Togo Electricité v. Togo Not annulled
Sept. 16: Continental Casualty v. Argentina Not annulled
White & Case 6
Examples of Appellate-like Decisions in Latin American
Sempra v. Argentina Annulled the Award on the ground of manifest excess of powers for resorting to customary
international law to interpret the BIT Essentially acted as an appellate body reviewing the merits of the Award
Enron v. Argentina Annulled the Award on the ground of manifest excess of powers for failure to apply customary
international law on necessity Yet found that the Parties had not argued the legal elements before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal
thus was not required expressly to address them The ad hoc Committee essentially reviewed the merits of the Award
Vivendi v. Argentina II No annulment, but replete with gratuitous criticism of Award Criticized the arbitrator severely, citing “most serious shortcomings” Criticized the arbitrator’s judgment in other cases
Additional Opinion of Professor Dalhuisen criticized the ICSID Secretariat generally as seeking too active a role
White & Case 7
Other Challenges to Finality in Latin America
Argentina’s Non-Payment of Awards In last decade, Argentina has not paid awards resulting from investor-state
arbitrations
Backlash:
On March 26, President Obama suspended Argentina from the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences program for failure to pay awards in CMS Gas (2005) and Azurix (2006).
Reported U.S. opposition to World Bank and IMF loans for Argentina
Denunciation of the ICSID Convention Bolivia (2007)
Ecuador (2010)
Venezuela (2012)
White & Case 9
Use of Multi-Party Arbitration
ICSID has registered joint requests for arbitration for 40 years 45+ ICSID arbitrations from Latin America have involved more than one
claimant: Argentina: 18 arbitrations
Venezuela: 10 arbitrations
Ecuador: 7 arbitrations
Peru: 4 arbitrations
Chile: 1 arbitration
El Salvador: 1 arbitration
Honduras: 1 arbitration
Nicaragua: 1 arbitration
Panama: 1 arbitration
Uruguay: 1 arbitration
White & Case 10
Argentina Water Concession Cases
4 disputes against Argentina relating to effect of emergency measures on water services concessions in different provinces: Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and InterAguas Servicios
Integrales del Agua S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17
Aguas Cordobesas S.A., Suez, and Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. v. Argentine Republic ICSID Case No. ARB/03/18
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19
AWG Group Ltd. v. Argentine Republic (UNCITRAL)
Each ICSID case involved multiple claimants and multiple BITs All 4 cases had same Tribunal and similar jurisdictional considerations
White & Case 11
Abaclat and others v. Argentina
Disputes relating to Argentine default on sovereign bonds
60,000 claimants are Italian bondholders
Decision on Jurisdiction (4 Augist 2011): Majority found that it had jurisdiction over “mass claims” The "mass aspect of Claimants' claims" present no barrier to the arbitration and the
"claims are admissible."
“This appears to be the first case in ICSID’s history [in which] mass claims are brought before it”
“Undeniable the large number of Claimants raises a series of questions and challenges”
Important to begin the analysis with a review of the terms of the relevant BIT. Here the Argentina-Italy BIT provides that bonds or “debt instruments” and securities are an investment; uses plural language for multiple claimants
White & Case 12
Abaclat and others v. Argentina (cont.)
The Argentine-Italy BIT is replete with references to plural “nationals” and “investors” Preamble: “between States and Nationals”
Art. 2(1): “investors of the Contracting Party”
Art. 2(2): ”Investments of investors”
Art. 3(1): “investments made by the investors”
Art. 4: “Investors of one Contracting Party”
Art. 5(1)(a):“investors of the other Contracting Party”
Art. 5(1)(b): “investors of one of the Contracting Parties”
Art. 6(1) and (4): “guarantee to investors”
Art. 8(3): “investors still continues to exist”
Art. 8(5)(a): “investments by investors”
Art. 10 (1): “Contracting Parties and their investors”
Art. 10 (2): “more favorable for the investors”
White & Case 13
Compare: Unconsolidated Related Cases
RELATED CASES SIMILARITIES DIFFERENCES
Camuzzi v. Argentina Sempra v. Argentina
Same Tribunal Similar proceedings Similar rules Similar disputed issues
Separate jurisdictional
rulings Sempra: Award in
2007; Anulled in 2010 Camuzzi: suspended in
2010
Electricidad Argentina v. Argentina EDF International v.
Argentina Same Claimant (EDF) Same Tribunal Similar disputed issues
Electricidad Argentina:
Suspended in 2006 EDF International:
Proceeding closed March 13, 2012. Decision pending
White & Case 15
Fraud/Corruption Allegations as Both Sword and Shield
Allegations of fraud/corruption by state may be part of claims for breach of BITs See EDF v. Romania (recognizing that requiring bribes would constitute, if proven, “a
violation of the fair and equitable treatment owed to the Claimant pursuant to the BIT” and a “fundamental breach of transparency and legitimate expectations”)
Allegations of fraud/corruption by investor may be bar against bringing claims See Plama v. Bulgaria (finding that material misrepresentations by investor in the
course of his investment resulted in the investment being deemed to be unprotected by the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”), even though the ECT did not have requirement that investment be “in accordance with law”.
See World Duty Free v. Kenya (holding that Claimant’s bribes violated international public policy and, as a result, that “Claimant is not legally entitled to maintain any of its pleaded claims”).
White & Case 16
Significant Latin American Case: Inceysa v. El Salvador
El Salvador objected to jurisdiction based on Claimant having obtained concession contract by fraud. Tribunal found numerous misrepresentations by Inceysa during bidding
process: Submitting false financial information
Failure to tell the truth regarding identity of strategic partner
Misrepresentation of corporate history and experience
Submitting false information concerning experience of sole administrator
Concealing affiliation with runner-up in bid
Tribunal found that even though BIT did not us “in accordance with law” language to define investment, “disputes that arise from an investment made illegaly are outside of the consent granted by parties and, consequently, are not subject to the jurisdiction of [ICSID], and that this Tribunal is not competent to resolve them…”.
White & Case 17
Other Latin American Cases
Fraud/Corruption allegations have been less salient in other Latin American arbitrations.
Luchetti v. Peru Tribunal didn’t reach Peru’s objection that Claimants’ investment was not in
accordance with Peruvian laws and regulations.
Aguas del Tunari v. Bolivia Tribunal rejected Bolivia’s jurisdictional challenge that Claimant’s corporate structure
breached concession contract and was misrepresented.
White & Case 18
White & Case LLP 701 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 United States Tel: + 1 202 626 3600 Fax: + 1 202 639 9355
Worldwide. For Our Clients. www.whitecase.com