VideoconferenciaUniversidad de Chile11 de Diciembre de 2008

El Marco Regulatorio Internacional sobre Inversin y las Tendencias de los Acuerdos Internacionales de Inversin y de los casos de Controversias Inversionista-Estado

Anna Joubin-BretAsesora LegalUNCTAD

Objetivos del Marco Legal en InversinRestricciones - Alcance y Establecimiento- Propiedad y controlRestricciones operacionales- Autorizacin y reporteEtc..

Tratamiento y ProteccinTransparencia

Tratamientos (TN, NMF, TJE)

Expropiacin & compensacin

Transferencias

Solucin de Controversias

Etc.

REDUCIENDOASCIENDIENDOEstos objetivos pueden ser alcanzados a travs de:Polticas Nacionales Contratos de Inversin/contratos estatales Acuerdos Internacionales de Inversin (IIAs)

El marco internacional en inversin BITs/IIAs tiene varios objetivos posibles:

PromocinBITsAcuerdosRegionalesUS-CAN-JAP BITSFTASNAFTALiberalizacinProteccin

Los flujos mundiales de IED han sobrepasado la suma de 2000Las entradas de IED, global y por grupo de economas, 1980-2007, ($ billion)

record por los flujos hacia los PEDfrica: $53 milliards (+16%) recordAmrica Latina: $126 milliards (+36%) recordPMA: $13 milliards (+4%) record Asia del Este: $157 milliards (+19%) recordAsia de Sudeste: $61 milliards (+18%) recordAsia del Sur: $31 milliards (+19%) record Asia del Oeste: $71 milliards (+12%) record

La Red de BITs continua creciendo rpidamente, en la actualidad hay casi 2600 BITs

Chart2

2111287

1791466

1781644

1531797

1371934

1822116

1322248

962344

842428

732501

712572

502622

BITs/year

BITs/cumulative

Years

Annual BITs

Cumulative BITs

Sheet1

199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007

BITs/year2111791781531371821329684737150

BITs/cumulative128714661644179719342116224823442428250125722622

Sheet1

&A

Page &P

BITs/year

BITs/cumulative

Years

Annual BITs

Cumulative BITs

Sheet2

Sheet3

BITs concluidos por grupo de pases a finales de 2007

BITs Concluidos por los pases de Sur Amrica Fuente: UNCTAD BIT databaseNota: Seala el nmero acumulados de BITs concluido hasta el ao 2007.

Hay cerca de 240 Acuerdos de Libre Comercio con provisiones de inversin

Chart1

55

611

1627

102129

130259

By period

Cumulative

Number of IIAs other than BITs and DTTs

Sheet1

1957-19671968-19781979-19891990-20002001-June 2008

By period5616102130

Cumulative51127129259

Sheet1

&A

Page &P

By period

Cumulative

Number of IIAs other than BITs and DTTs

Sheet2

Sheet3

El spaghetti bowl de IIAs

Tendencias en casos inversionista-Estado en el mundo y en Amrica Latina

Nmero de casos inversionista-Estado (a fines de 2007)

Chart1

001

001

001

001

102

114

116

1512

6119

6227

6538

7651

12467

161295

2915139

2421184

2619229

188255

278290

ICSID

Non-ICSID

All cases cumulative

Annual number of cases

Cumulative number of cases

Sheet3

ALLICSIDNon-ICSIDAll cases cumulative

19871101

19880001

19890001

19900001

19910001

19920001

19931102

19942114

19952116

199661512

199776119

199886227

1999116538

2000137651

20011612467

200228161295

2003442915139

2004452421184

2005452619229

200626188255

200735278290

290182108

Sheet3

&A

Page &P

ICSID

Non-ICSID

All cases cumulative

Annual number of cases

Cumulative number of cases

Sectores involucrados en los casos de arbitraje conocidos (a fines de 2007)

Chart1

38

31

24

6

Sheet1

IdentifierYear the case was initiatedCountry involvedHome country of the investorParties to the Dispute(case number)SectorType of investmentNature of dispute/ claimLegal InstrumentRules/ VenueAmount Sought by InvestorAmount Awarded/ status of disputeDecisions RenderedAwarded in favor of the StateAwarded in favor of the investorSettled/ not decided/unknownComposition of tribunalLegal issues: proceduralLegal Issues: substantiveCommentary (if any)Special features

111987Sri LankaUnited KingdomAsian Agricultural Products Ltd (AAPL) v. Sri Lanka (Case No. ARB/87/3)1shrimp farming enterpriseUK-Sri Lanka BITICSIDUS$ 8 million plus interestUS$ 460,000 awarded plus interestAward issued on 27 June 1990x

121993Congo, Democratic Republic of (former Republic of Zaire)United StatesAmerican Manufacturing and Trading v. Zaire (Case No. ARB/93/1)2manufacturing and trading enterpriseclaims arising out of two episodes of looting in which soldiers of the Zairian armed forces destroyed, damaged or carried away the property, finished goods, raw materials and other objects of value belonging to the local subsidiary of the investorUS-Zaire BITICSIDUS$ 14,3 million plus interestUS$ 9 million awarded plus interest at 7.5% per annum in default of paymentAward issued on 21 February 1997xI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protection and securityII.8. International minimum standardII.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretation

131994AlbaniaGreeceTradex Hellas SA v. Republic of Albania (Case No. ARB/94/2)1agricultural enterpriseGreece-Albania BIT (Albania Investment Laws)ICSIDUS$ 3,107,074 including interest and costsjurisdiction on the treaty-grounds were rejected, the case proceeded on the basis of Albania's investment law; claim eventually rejected on the meritsDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 24 December 1996;Award issued on 29 April 1999x

241994PolandGermanySaar Papier v. Poland I2waste paper enterpriseclaim arising out of enforcement of environmental regulationsGermany-Poland BITUNCITRALunknownDM 2.3 million awarded (equivalent in US$ unknown)x

151995BurundiBelgiumAntoine Goetz and others v. Burundi (Case No. ARB/95/3)1mining enterpriseBelgium-Luxembourg Economic Union-Burundi BITICSIDapprox US$175 millionTribunal has jurisdiction and finds breach of BIT. In a settlement reached thereafter on 23 December 1998, "Burundi agreed to reimburse (the investors) the taxes and custom duties it had to pay, amounting to almost US$ 3 million, and to create a new freeAward on Merits issued on 2 September 1998;Award (Embodying the Parties' Settlement Agreement) issued on 10 February 1999x

261995UnknownUnknownAn investor-state dispute under a BIT concluded between a Latin American state and a European state3hotels investmentBIT between a Latin American and a European stateICCunknownclaim was withdrawn before it was concludedx

171996KazakhstanUnited StatesBiederman v. Kazakhstan1oil concessionUS-Kazakhstan BITSCCunknownUS$ 8.9 million awardedAward issued in August 1999x

281996PolandGermanySaar Papier v. Poland II2waste paper enterpriseclaim arising out of the enforcement of environmental regulationGermany-Poland BITUNCITRALunknownunknownx

391996PolandUnited StatesAmeritech v. Poland2minority shareholding in Polish cellular phone companyUS-Poland BITUNCITRALapprox US$ 500 millioncase was settled in 1996-97, but terms were never made publicx

4101996PolandFranceFrance Telecom v. Poland2minority shareholding in Polish cellular phone companyFrance-Poland BITUNCITRALapprox US$ 500 millioncase was settled in 1996-97, but terms were never made publicx

5111996Russian FederationGermanySedelmayer v. Russia3real estate ownershipclaim arising out of the confiscation of the investor's property as a result of the Directive issued by the President of the Russian FederationGermany-Russia BITSCCapprox US$ 8 million plus interestUS$ 2,350,000 awarded plus interest. The award was upheld by the Svea Court of AppealsAward issued on 7 July 1998xI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.11. Parallel international proceedingsII.2. CompensatonII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.13. State responsibilityII.16. Treaty's scope of application

6121996VenezuelaNetherlandsFEDAX N.V. v. Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3(1)3debt instrumentsclaim arising out of certain debt instruments issued by the Republic of Venezuela and assigned by way of endorsement to the ClaimantNetherlands-Venezuela BITICSIDUS$ 589,950 plus interestTribunal has jurisdiction; US$ 598,950 (as principal of the promissory notes) and US$ 161,254.14 (as regular and penal interest) awardedDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 11 July 1997;Award issued on 9 March 1998xI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.2. CompensationII.15. Treaty interpretation

1131997ArgentinaFranceCompaa de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/97/3)3water and sweage concessionclaims arising out of a series of decrees, resolutions, laws, and legal opinions of the Argentine Republic and its constituent Province of Tucuman which were allegedly designed to undermine the operation of a thirty-year concession contractFrance-Argentina BITICSIDover US$ 300 millionclaim was first dismissed (2000);award was then annuled (2002);claim was resubmitted before new tribunal (2005);US$ 105 million awarded plus interests (6% per year from 1997 over US$ 51million and from 2002 over US$ 54 millions), plusUS$ 701,961.08 foAward issued on 21 November 2000;Decision on the Challenge to the President of the Committee issued on 3 October 2001;Annulment Decision issued on 3 July 2002;Decision on Jurisdiction issued on 14 November 2005;Award II issued on 25 July 2007xFirst Tribunal: Francisco Rezek (chair); Thomas Buergenthal; Peter D. Trooboff;Annulment Committee: L. Yves Fortier (chair); James R. Crawford; Jos Carlos Fernndez Rozas;Second Tribunal: J. William Rowley (chair); Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Carlos BerI.2. AnnulmentI.4. Arbitrators' independence/ duty of disclosureI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.11. Parallel international proceedingsII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protectoion and securityII.8. International minimum standardII.12. State contractsII.13. State responsibility

2141997SlovakCzech RepublicCeskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, a.s. v. The Slovak Republic (Case No. ARB/97/4)3debt instrumentsCzech-Slovak BIT (jurisdiction not based on BIT)ICSIDSlovak Crowns 40,3 billion (approx US$ 1.4 billion) plus interestSlovak Crowns 24,8 billion (approx US$ 800 million) plus interestDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 24 May 1999;Second Decision on Jurisdiction issued on 1 December 2000;Award issued on 29 December 2004x

3151997ArgentinaUnited StatesLanco International Inc v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/97/6)3port terminal concession agreementunknownArgentina-US BITICSIDunclear from decision on jurisdictioncase was settled on unknown termsDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 8 December 1998xI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.16. Treaty's scope of application

4161997CanadaUnited StatesEthyl Corp v. Canada2MMT - gasoline additiveclaim arising out of Canada's Manganese-based Fuel Additiives Act prohibiting interprovincial trade in or import for commercial purpose of manganese tricarbonyl (MMT)NAFTAUNCITRALnot less than US$ 251 million plus interestcase was settled for US$ 13 million after decision on jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 24 June 1998xI.8. Jurisdiction III.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

5171997MexicoUnited StatesMetalclad v. United Mexican States (Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1)3hazardous waste disposal enterpriseclaims arising out of Mexican local governments of San Luis Potosi and Guadalcazar's interferance with the investor's development and operation of a hazardous waste landfillNAFTAICSID AFUS$ 43 million or US$113 million plus interestUS$ 16,685,000 awarded including interest (6% compounded annually for approx 5 years)Award issued on 30 August 2000xI.6. Due processI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.13. TransparencyII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.13. State responsibilityII.14. TransparencyII.15. Treaty interpretation

6181997MexicoUnited StatesRobert Azinian and others v. United Mexican States (Case No. ARB(AF)/97/2)3waste enterpriseclaims arising out of the cancellation by the City of Naucalpan of a concession contract for the commercial and industrial waste collectionNAFTAICSID AFup to US$ 19,2 millionclaim was unsuccessfulAward issued on 1 November 1999xI.7. EvidenceI.9. Jurisdiction IIII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.12. State contracts

7191997SpainArgentinaEmilio Agustin Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7)2chemical products enterpriseclaims arising from treatment allegedly received by the investor from Spanish entities, in connection with his investment in an enterprise for the production and distribution of chemical products in the Spanish region of GaliciaSpain-Argentina BITICSIDSpanish Pesetas 30 million (equivalent to US$ 135,000) plus interestSpanish Pesetas 30 million awarded plus interest - for a total of 57,641,265.28 Spanish Pesetas (equivalent to US$ 296,597 at time of award in 2000)Procedural Order on Provisional Measures issued on 28 October 1999;Decision on Jurisdiction issued on 25 January 2000;Award issued on 13 November 2000;Rectification of the Award issued on 31 January 2001xI.3. Applicable lawI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.10. Interim measuresI.12. PrecedentII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.9. Most-favored-nation treatmentII.12. State contractsII.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretationII.17. Treatment standards (additional)

1201998CanadaUnited StatesS.D. Myers Inc. v. Canada2PCB wasteclaims arising from Canada's ban on export of PCB wasteNAFTAUNCITRALUS$ 53 millionC$ 6,050,000 (equivalent to US$ 3,858,911) awarded plus interestFinal Award issued on 30 December 2002xI.9. Jurisdiction IIII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.4. Expropriation (direct)II.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.11. National treatmentII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of applicationII.17. Treatment standards (

2211998ChileSpainVctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile (Case No. ARB/98/2)3newspaper companyclaim arising out of the confiscation of the investor's companySpain-Chile BITICSIDUS$ 500 millionpending (the proceeding remains suspended pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 10(2) following the resignation of Galo Leoro Franco on August 26, 2005)Decision on Provisional Measures issued on 25 September 2001;Decision on Jurisdiction issued on 8 May 2002 (French)x

3221998EgyptUnited KingdomWena Hotels Ltd. V. Egypt (Case No. ARB/98/4)3hotel lease and development agreementsclaim arising out of agreements to develop and manage two hotels in Luxor and Cairo, Egypt as well as an alleged campaign of continual harassment of the investor by the Government of EgyptUK-Egypt BITICSIDnot less than US$ 62,820,000 plus interest and costsUS$ 8,061,897 awarded plus interest of US$ 11,431,386 (calculated at rate of 9%, compounded quarterly) awarded in 2000;Interest in default of payment at the same rateDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 29 June 1999;Final Award issued on 8 December 2000;Decision on Application for Annulment issued on 5 February 2002;Decision on the Claimants Application for Interpretation of the Arbitral Award dated December 8, 2000xI.1. AdmissibilityI.2. AnnulmentI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.4. Expropriation (direct)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protection and security

4231998MexicoUnited StatesWaste Management v. United Mexican States (I) (Case No. ARB(AF)/98/2)3waste management contract in Acapulcoclaim arising out of the conduct of certain Mexican state-owned entities and the City of Acapulco that adversely affect the investmentNAFTAICSIDnot less than US$ 36 million plus costsTribunal lacks jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 2 June 2000xI.3. Applicable lawI.8. Jurisdiction III.15. Treaty interpretation

5241998ParaguayPeruEudoro Armando Olguin v. Republic of Paraguay (Case No. ARB/98/5)2a company for the manufacture and distribution of food products in Paraguayclaims arising out of Republic of Paraguay and its agencies alleged negligent conduct in supervising the activities of a domestic financial institution that had been financed by the investorPeru-Paraguay BITICSID2,407,057,500 Paraguayan Guarani (US$ 1,342,475 as of June 30, 1995) plus interestno damage awardedAward issued on 26 July 2001xI.7. EvidenceI.9. Jurisdiction IIII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.11. National treatmentII.16. Treaty's scope of application

6251998PolandGermanyLutz Ingo Schaper v. Poland2waste paper enterpriseclaims arising out of the enforcement of environmental regulationGermany-Poland BITUNCITRALDM 5 million (equivalent to approx US$ 3 million) according to a Polish Bond Prospectus detailing outstanding litigation against Polandpendingx

7261998UkraineUnited StatesJoseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine (Case No. ARB(AF)/98/1)3radio broadcasting enterpriseclaim arising out of difficulties in obtaining of licenses for radio frequencies and broadcasting channelsUS-Ukraine BITICSID AFunknowndamages were not quantified in award (which merely embodied a settlement agreed by the parties)Award issued on 18 September 2000xII.2. Compensation

8271998United StatesCanadaThe Loewen Group, Inc. & Raymond L. Loewen v. USA (Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3)3funeral home operationclaim arising out of jury award in US court against Canadian-owned companies involved in death-care industryNAFTAICSID AFnot less than US$ 725 millionclaim dismissed in its entiretyDecision on Competence and Jurisdiction issued on 5 January 2001;Final Award issued on 26 June 2003xI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.13. TransparencyII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.11. National treatmentII.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

1281999CanadaUnited StatesPope & Talbot v. Canada1softwood lumber millsclaim arising out of the manner in which Canada has chosen to implement the Softwood Lumber Agreement entered into with the United StatesNAFTAUNCITRALUS$ 507 millionUS$ 461,566 awarded plus interest (from 31 May 2002 until payment at 5% per annum, compounded quarterly)Award on Merits issued on 10 April 2001;Award on Damages issued on 31 May 2002xI.6. Due processI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.13. TransparencyII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.8. International minimum standardII.11. National treatmentII.15. Treaty interpretationII.17. Treatment standards (additional)

2291999MalaysiaBelgiumGruslin v Malaysia (Case No. ARB/99/3)3company shareholdingclaims arising out of the imposition by the Malaysian Government of exchange controlsBelgium & Luxembourg-Malaysia BITICSIDapprox US$ 1.2 millionTribunal lacks jurisdictionFinal Award issued on 27 November 2000xI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.13. TransparencyII.16. Treaty's scope of application

3301999Congo, Democratic Republic ofUnited StatesPatrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (Case No. ARB/99/7)3law firmunknownUS-Democratic Republic of Congo BITICSIDunknownFinal Award was annuled by the Ad hoc Committee;Equal sharing of the cost of annulment proceedingFinal Award issued on 9 February 2004;Annulment Decision issued on 1 November 2006xAnnulment Committee: Antonias Dimolitsa (chair); Robert S. M. Dossou;Andrea GiardinaI.9. Juridiction IIII.5. Expropriation (indirect)

4311999Czech RepublicUnited StatesRonald Lauder v. Czech Republic3broadcasting enterpriseclaims arising out of the conduct of the Czech Media Council towards the broadcasting enterprise partly owned by the foreign investorUS-Czech Republic BITUNCITRALnot quantifiedno damages awardedAward issued on 3 September 2001;xI.6. Due processI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.11. Parallel international proceedingsII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protection and securityII.8. International minimum standardII.15. Treaty interpretationII.17. Treatment standards (additional)

5321999EgyptGreeceMiddle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co v. Arab Republic of Egypt (Case No. ARB/99/6)3cement distribution enterpriseclaim arising out of Egypt's alleged expropriation of Middle East Cement's interests in a business concession located in Egypt and Egypt's alleged failure to ensure the re-exportation of Middle East Cement's assetsGreece-Egypt BITICSIDUS$ 42 million plus compound interestUS$ 2,190,430 awarded plus US$ 1,558,970 in relation to compound interest up to date of award, plus interest at 6% compounded annually until paymentAward issued on 12 April 2002xI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.16. Treaty's scope of application

6331999EstoniaUnited StatesAlex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc v. Republic of Estonia (Case No. Arb/99/2)3banking enterpriseclaims arising out of the Bank of Estonia's revoking of the investor's license and failing to abide by two 1996 agreementsUS-Estonia BITICSIDUS$ 1,639,344 plus between US$ 50 and 70 million for other damagesall claims were rejected on the meritsAward issued on 25 June 2001xI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.11. National treatmentII.13. State responsibilityII.17. Treatment standards (additional)counterclaim advanced by Estonia was rejected by the Tribunal

7341999LatviaSwedenSwembalt AB v. Latvia3scrapping of a foreign-owned shipclaim arising out of the taking by the Riga Port Authority of a ship owned by the investorSweden-Latvia BITUNCITRALUS$ 2,806,258 plus 10% interest, and costs in the amount of SEK 1.4 million (equivalent to approx US$ 140,000)US$ 2,506,235 awarded, with interest of 10 % per year starting 9 April 1999, and costs in the amount of approx US$ 200,000; Award unsuccessfully challenged in Swedish courtsAward issued on 23 October 2000xI.9. Jurisdiction IIII.2. CompensationII.4. Expropriation (direct)

8351999MexicoUnited StatesMarvin Roy Feldman Karpa v. United Mexican States (Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1)2cigarette export enterpriseclaims arising out of Mexico's application of certain tax laws to the export of tobacco productsNAFTAICSID AFUS$ 50 millionMexican Pesos 9,464,627.50 awarded (equivalent to US$ 927,814 at the time of the award); review by Ontario Supreme Court, 3 December 2003. Review by Ontario Court of Appeal, 11 January 2005.Award on Jurisdiction issued on 6 December 2000;Award on Merits issued on 16 December 2002xI.1. AdmissibilityI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.4. Expropriation (direct)II.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.11. National treatmentII.16. Treaty's scope of application

9361999Moldova, Republic ofUnited StatesLink Trading v. Moldova0import of consumer products enterpriseclaim arising out of a change in the rates of duties and VAT exemptionsUS-Moldova BITUNCITRALUS$ 3,458,813.25claims rejected on the meritsAward on Jurisdiction issued on 16 February 2001;Final Award issued on 18 April 2002xI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.2 CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.12. State contractsII.16. Treaty's scope of application

10371999United StatesCanadaMondev International Ltd. v. United States (Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2)3commercial real estateclaim arising out of Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and state law regarding immunization from intentional tort liabilityNAFTAICSID AFnot less than US$ 50 millionclaim dismissed in its entiretyAward issued on 11 October 2002xI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.13. TransparencyII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.8. International minimum standardII.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

11381999United StatesCanadaMethanex Corp. v. United States2MTBE gasoline additive producerclaim arising out of California ban on use or sale of MTBE gasoline additiveNAFTAUNCITRALUS$ 970 million including interest and costsclaim dismissed in its entiretyDecision on Amici Curiae issued on 15 January 2001;Partial Award issued on 7 August 2002;Final Award issued on 3 August 2005xI.1. AdmissibilityI.3. Applicable lawI.4. Arbitrators' independence/ Duty of disclosureI.6. Due processI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.11. Parallel international proceedingsI.12. PrecedentI.13. TransparencyII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.11. National treatmentII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

1392000CanadaUnited StatesUnited Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Canada3postal servicesclaims arising from allegedly anti-competitive practices of Canada and Canada Post Corporation in the non-monopoly postal services marketNAFTAUNCITRALnot less than US$ 160 millionxKenneth Keith (chair); Dean Ronald Cass; L. Yves FortierI.3. Applicable lawI.13. Transparency

2402000Czech RepublicNetherlandsCME v. Czech Republic3broadcasting enterpriseclaims arising from the actions and omissions attributed to the Media Council, an organ of the Czech Republic, that allegedly commercially destroyed the broadcasting station operator which was partly owned by the investorNetherlands-Czech Republic BITUNCITRALUS$ 560 million plus interestUS$ 269,814,000 awarded plus interest (at 10% from 23 February 2003 until payment)Partial Award issued on 13 September 2001;Final Award issued on 14 March 2003xI.1. AdmissibilityI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.11. Parallel international proceedingsII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protection and securityII.8. International minimum standardII.9. Most-favored-nation treatmentII.13. State responsibilityII.16. Treaty

3412000GermanyIndiaAshok Sancheti v. Germany0unknownGermany-India BITUNCITRALunknowntribunal was constituted, but case was discontinuedno award issuedx

4422000LebanonEgyptEastern Company v. Lebanon0unknownEgypt-Lebanon BITCairo Centre RulesunknownunknownAward issued on 6 June 2002x

5432000MexicoUnited StatesWaste Management v. United Mexican States (II) Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3)3waste management contract in Acapulcoclaim arising out of the conduct of certain Mexican state-owned entities and the City of Acapulco that adversely affect the investmentNAFTAICSID AFnot less than US$ 36 million plus costsNo damages were awardedDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 26 June 2002;Award issued on 30 April 2004xI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.11. Parallel international proceedingsII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.13. State responsibilityII.16. Treaty's scope of application

6442000MexicoSpainTecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed v. United Mexican States (Case No ARB(AF)/00/2)3waste disposal businessclaims arising out of Mexico's alleged non-renewal of a licence necessary to operate a landfill of hazardous industrial wasteSpain-Mexico BITICSID AFUS$ 52 million plus interestUS$ 5,533,017.12 awarded plus compound interest at an annual rate of 6%, commencing on 25 November 1998 until paymentAward issued on 29 May 2003xI.1. AdmissibilityI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction III.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protection and securityII.9. Most-favored-nation treatmentII.11. National treatmentII.13. State responsibilityII.16. Treaty's scope of

7452000MoroccoItalyConsortium RFCC v. Morocco (Case No. ARB/00/6)2highway projectItaly-Morocco BITICSIDEuro 72,186,174.35 (equivalent to approx US$ 68 million)claims dismissed on the merits; investor's request for annulment unsuccesful (decision on annulment not public)Decision on Jurisdiction issued on 16 July 2001;Award issued on 22 December 2003;Annulment Decision issued on 18 January 2006x

8462000MoroccoItalySalini Costruttori and Italstrade v. Morocco (Case No. ARB/00/4)2public procurement agreement for highway constructionclaim arising out of non-payment of contract priceItaly-Morocco BITICSIDequivalent to US$ 66,114,917case was settled on unknown termsDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 23 July 2001xII.2. Compensation

9472000MyanmarSingaporeYaung Chi OO Trading Pte Ltd. V. Government of the Union of Myanmar (ASEAN I.D. Case No. ARB/01/1)2brewery enterpriseclaim arising out of the alleged seizure of the investor's property by armed agents of the Government and the freezing of certain bank accounts of the investorASEAN Agreementsad-hoc (adopted ICSID AF rules)unknownTribunal lacks jurisdictionAward issued on 31 March 2003xI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.10. Interim measuresII.2. CompensationII.9. Most-favored-nation treatmentII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

10482000Russian FederationUnited KingdomUK Bank v. Russia3financial servicesclaim arising out of the default on sovereign bonds during the Russian financial crisisUK-Russia BITSCCunknowncase was settled on undisclosed terms in 2001no award issuedx

11492000Sri LankaUnited StatesMihaly International Corp v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (Case No. ARB/00/2)2power plantclaim arising out of the unsuccesful conclusion of a contract between the Republic of Sri Lanka and the investor for the building, ownership and operation of the power stationUS-Sri Lanka BITICSIDunknownTribunal lacks jurisdictionAward issued on 15 March 2002xI.3. Applicable lawI.9. Jurisdiction IIII.2. Compensation

12502000UkraineUnited StatesGeneration Ukraine v. Ukraine (Case No. ARB/00/9)2construction of an office buildingclaims arising out of the alleged obstruction and interferance by local authorities with the realisation of the investor's construction projectUS-Ukraine BITICSIDUS$ 7.1 billion plus US$ 2.3 billion in legal costsrejected on the meritsAward issued on 16 September 2003xI.1. AdmissibilityI.3. Applicable lawI.4. Arbitrators' independence/ Duty of disclosureI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

13512000United StatesCanadaADF Group Inc. v. United States (Case No. ARB(AF)/00/1)2highway projectclaims arising out of federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 and implementing regulations requiring that federally-funded state highway projects use domestic steelNAFTAICSID AFnot less than US$ 90 millionclaim dismissed in its entiretyAward issued on 9 January 2003xI.3. Applicable lawI.6. Due processI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction III.2. CompensationII.3. Exceptions/ ExemptionsII.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.8. International minimum standardII.9. Most-favored-nation treatmentII.11. National treatmentII.13. State responsibilityII.16. Treaty's scope of applicationII.17. T

14522000CanadaUnited StatesKetcham Investments, Inc. and Tysa Investments, Inc. v. Canada1softwood lumber millsNAFTA(notice of intent)C$ 30 million (equivalent to US$ 20 million) plus indirect damagesdispute was abandoned (notice withdrawn) without the commencement of an arbitrationx

1532001ArgentinaUnited StatesEnron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets LP v. Argentina (Case No. ARB/01/3)1natural gas transportation companyclaims arising out of certain tax assessments allegedly imposed by some Argentinean provinces in respect to a gas transportation company as well as the Argentine Government's alleged refusal to allow tariff adjustments in accordance with the US Producer PUS-Argentina BITICSIDUS$ 630 millionUS$ 106,2 million awarded plus interest (2%);Rectification Decision (not public)xFrancisco Orrego Vicua (chair); Albert Jan van den Berg; Pierre-Yves TschanzI.1. AdmissibilityI.3. Applicable lawI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.12. PrecedentII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

2001MaliFranceSocit d'Exploitation des Mines d'Or de Sadiola S.A. v. Republic of Mali (Case No. ARB/01/5)1gold mining concessionContract-basedICSIDunknownunknownAward issued on 25 February 2003x

2542001ArgentinaUnited StatesCMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina (Case No. ARB/01/8)1gas transmission enterpriseclaims arising out of Argentina's suspension/termination of the right to calculate tariffs in US dollars and to make inflation adjustmentsUS-Argentina BITICSIDUS$ 261.1 million (or 243.6 million and shares) plus interestxFrancisco Orrego Vicua (chair); Marc Lalonde; Francisco Rezek;Annulment Committee: Gilbert Guillaume (chair); Nabil Elaraby; James R. Crawford

3552001ArgentinaUnited StatesAzurix I v. Argentina (Case No. ARB/01/12)3water and sewage concessionclaims arising out of Argentina's omissions as well as of the actions and omissions of its political subdivisions and instrumentalitiesUS-Argentina BITICSIDUS$ 685 million plus interestUS$ 165.2 million awarded plus interestDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 8 December 2003;Award issued on 14 July 2006xI.3. Applicable lawI.6. Due processI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.10. Interim measuresI.11. Parallel international proceedingsI.12. PrecedentII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.3. Exceptions/ ExemptionsII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protection and securityII.8. International minimum standardII.12. State contractsII.13. State responsibili

4562001BurundiBelgiumAntoine Goetz and Others v. Burundi (Case No. ARB/01/2)1mining, banking and service enterprisesBelgium-Luxembourg Economic Union-Burundi BITICSIDunknownpending (the proceeding is stayed);x

5572001ChileMalaysiaMTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Chile (Case No. ARB/01/7)2construction of residential and commercial complexclaims arising out of the denial of zoning modification necessary in order to execute a development projectChile-Malaysia BITICSIDApprox US$ 20 million plus interest;request of annulment declinedUS$ 5,871,322.42 awarded plus compound interest from 5 November 1998 until payment, at LIBOR rate on 5 November of each year;Request for annulment is dismissed by the Ad Hoc CommitteeFinal Award issued on 25 May 2004; Ad Hoc Committee's Decision on the Respondent's Request for a Continued Stay of Execution issued on 1 june 2005;Decision on Annulment issued on 21 March 2007xAndrs Rigo Sureda (chair); Marc Lalonde; Rodrigo Oreamuno;Ad Hoc Committee: Gilbert Guillaume (chair); James R. Crawford; Sara Ordoez NoriegaI.9. Jurisdiction III.2 AnnulmentI.3 Applicable lawII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.8. International minimum standardII.9. Most-favoured-nation treatmentII.11. National treatmentII.12. State contractsII.13. State responsibilit

6582001Czech RepublicNetherlandsSaluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) (Nomura -- Japan) v. Czech Republic3banking enterpriseclaims arising out of the imposition of the forced administration of the investor's banking enterprise by the Czech National Bank (CNB)Netherlands-Czech Republic BITUNCITRAL, PCA is providing secretarial support; seat is geneva, hearings have been in londonapprox US$ 1 billionpending; Tribunal found a breach of FET; question of the appropriate redress for that breach, including questions ofquantum, will be addressed in a second phase of this arbitrationDecision on Jurisdiction over the Czech Republic's Counterclaim issued on 7 May 2004;Partial Award issued on 17 March 2006xSir Arthur Watts QC (chair), L. Yves Fortier, Peter BehrensI.3. Applicable lawI.9. Jurisdiction II

7592001GuyanaUnited KingdomBooker PLC v. Guyana (Case No. ARB/01/9)1debt instrumentsclaim arising out of the repayment of outstanding debt related to the expropriation of a sugar enterprise in the 1970sUK-Guyana BITICSIDapprox US$ 10 million in damages and US$ 8 million in interest and legal feesclaim was abandonedOrder taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding issued on 11 October 2003x

8602001HungaryUnited KingdomAES Summit Generation Ltd. v. Hungary (Case No. ARB/01/4)3power purchase and sale agreementEnergy Charter Treaty and UK-Hungary BITICSIDunknowncase was settled on undisclosed termsOrder taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding issued on 3 January 2002x

9612001KazakhstanUnited StatesAIG Capital Partners, Inc. and CJSC Tema Real Estate Company v. Kazakhstan (Case No. ARB/01/6)2building of residential housing complexUS-Kazakhstan BITICSIDunknownconcluded (award not public)Final Award issued on 7 October 2003x

10622001KazakhstanUnited StatesCCL Oil v. Kazakhstan (SCC Case 122/2001)1oil investmentUS-Kazakhstan BITSCCEuro 178,892,338Tribunal has jurisdiction; Tribunal rejects claims on the merits (awards only partly public)Jurisdictional Award issued in 2003;Final Award issued in 2004;Supplemental Award and Interpretation issued in 2004x

11632001LatviaSwedenNykomb Synergetics v. Latvia0electric power and heat production projectclaims arising out of a dispute over the purchase price to be paid by Latvenergo, the State company involved in the production, purchase and distribution of electric power in LatviaEnergy Charter TreatySCCapprox US$ 12.8 million plus costs in the amount of SEC 8.3 million (equivalent to approx US$1.13 million)Lats 1,600,000 (equivalent to approx US$ 3 million) plus post-award interest, and costs in the amount of SEC 2 million (equivalent to approx US$ 271,800)Award issued on 16 December 2003xI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.11. Parallel international proceedingsII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.13. State responsibilityII.17. Treatment standards (additional)

12642001MexicoUnited StatesAdams et.al. v. United Mexican States3vacation propertiesclaim arising out of the alleged expropriation of vacation propertiesNAFTAUNCITRALapprox US$ 75 millionunknownx

13652001PakistanSwitzerlandSGS v. Pakistan (Case No. ARB/01/13)3service agreementclaims arising out of Pakistan's alleged non-payment of invoices to the investor and its attempts to terminate the underlying agreementSwitzerland-Pakistan BITICSIDUS$ 112,268,430.49 plus damages to be quantified later for alleged harm to reputation and legal costs, and interest on all amountsTribunal lacks jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 6 August 2003xI.1. AdmissibilityI.3. Applicable lawI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.11. Parallel international proceedingsII.2. CompensationII.12. State contractsII.15. Treaty interpretation

14662001RomaniaUnited StatesNoble Ventures v. Romania (Case No. ARB/01/11)2stock purchase agreement for a steel industry assetclaims arising out of a privatization agreement concerning the acquisition, management, operation and disposition of a substantial steel mill with associated and other assetsUS-Romania BITICSIDUS$143,531,000 plus applicable tax gross-up, interest compounded from July 31, 2001, attorneys fees, expenses and costs of arbitrationclaims rejected on the meritsAward issued on 12 October 2005;Decision on the Respondents Request for Rectification of the Award of October 12, 2005 issued on 19 May 2006xI.7. EvidenceII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protection and securityII.8. International minimum standardII.12. State contractsII.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretationII.17. Treatment s

15672001Trinidad and TobagoUnited StatesF-W Oil Interests, Inc. v. Republic of Trinidad & Tobago (Case No. ARB/01/14)1oil and gas development contractUS-Trinidad & Tobago BITICSIDover US$ 200 millionconcluded (award not public)Award issued on 3 March 2006x

16682001United Arab EmiratesItalyImpregilo, S.p.A and Rizzani De Eccher S.p.A. v. United Arab Emirates (Case No. ARB/01/1)2construction of a mosqueItaly-UAE BITICSIDunknowncase was settled on undisclosed termsOrder taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding issued by the Secretary-General on 7 August 2001x

692001CanadaUnited StatesTrammel Crow Company v. Canada3procurementNAFTA(notice of intent)US$ 32 millionsettled in 2002 (notice withdrawn)x

1692002ArgentinaUnited StatesLG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/02/1)1gas distribution enterpriseclaims arising out of Argentina's unilateral decision to freeze certain automatic semi-annual adjustments, based on changes in the US Producer Price Index, to the tariffs for distribution of natural gas in ArgentinaUS-Argentina BITICSIDUS$ 248 or 268 million plus interest and costsxTatiana Bogdanowsky de Maekelt (chair), Francisco Rezek, Albert Jan van den BergI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.1. Applicable lawII.3. Exceptions/ ExemptionsII.4. Expropriation (direct)II.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.12. State contractsII.15. Treaty interpretationII.17. Treatment standards (additional)

2702002ArgentinaUnited StatesSempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/02/16)1gas supply and distribution enterpriseclaims arising out of Argentina's suspension of the licensee companies' tariff increases based on the US producer price index and the subsequent pesification of these tariffsUS-Argentina BITICSIDUS$ 129,187,344 as unpaid subsidies by ResponderUS$ 128,250,462 awarded plus interest ( 2% geginning on 1 January 2007 until the date of the award)x0I.1. AdmissibilityI.3. Applicable lawI.5. ConsolidationI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.15. Treaty interpretation

3712002ArgentinaUnited StatesAES Corporation v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/02/17)1electricity generation and distribution operationsclaims arising out of Argentina's alleged refusal to apply previously agreed tariff calculation and adjustment mechanismsUS-Argentina BITICSIDunknownpending (Tribunal suspends the proceedings on 23 January 2006)Decision on Jurisdiction issued on 26 April 2005xI.3. Applicable lawI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.12. PrecedentII.15. Treaty interpretation

4722002ArgentinaGermanySiemens v. Argentina (Case No. ARB/02/8)3migration control and personal identification systemclaim arising out of the Government of Argentina's alleged suspension of a contract to establish a migration control and personal identification system agreed with the investorGermany-Argentina BITICSIDUS$ 462,477,071Tribunal has jurisdiction;US$ 237.838.439 awarded plus interest of 2,66%;Annulment proceeding pendingDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 3 August 2004;Award and Separate Opinion issued on 6 February 2007xDr Andrs Rigo Sureda (chair); Judge Charles N. Brower; Professor Domingo Bello JaneiroI.3. Applicable lawI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.12. Precedent

5732002BoliviaNetherlandsAguas del Tunari S.A. v. Bolivia (Case No. ARB/02/3)3water and sweage concessionNetherlands-Bolivia BITICSIDdamages not quantifiedpending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 21 October 2005x

6742002CanadaUnited States2lindane productionNAFTAUNCITRALapprox US$ 100 millionThe dispute has been resurrected and taken forward by Chemtura in 2007x

7752002Czech RepublicUnited KingdomWilliam Nagel v. Czech Republic3GSM phone licenseUK-Czech Republic BITSCCunknownclaim was rejected on the merits (award partly public); currently being challenged in Swedish courtsAward issued in 2003x

8762002SeychellesUnknownCDC Group plc v. Republic of Seychelles (Case No. ARB/02/14)3debt instrumentsunknownICSIDunknownaward and decision not publicAward issued on 17 December 2003;Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Republic of the Seychelles issued on 29 June 2005

9772002EcuadorUnited StatesIBM World Trade Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador (Case No. ARB/02/10)3informatic services contractclaims arising out of the alleged lack of payment of monies to the investor's wholly-owned subsidiaryUS-Ecuador BITICSIDunknownTribunal has jurisdiction; case was settled afterwardsDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 22 December 2003 (Spanish and later in English);Award embodying the settlement agreement issued on 22 July 2004xI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretation

10782002EcuadorUnited StatesOccidental Exploration and Production Company v. Ecuador (LCIA Case No. UN3467)1oil exploration and production enterpriseclaims arising out of Ecuador's action denying certain value added tax relief to the investorUS-Ecuador BITUNCITRALUS$ 201,563,930Award issued on 1 July 2004xFrancisco Orrego Vicua (chair), Charles N. Brower, Patrick Barrera SweeneyI.1. AdmissibilityI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.13. TransparencyII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protection and securityII.8. International minimum standardII.9. Most-favored-nation treatmentII.11. National treatmentII.15. Treaty i

11792002EgyptUnited StatesChampion Trading Company and others v. Arab Republic of Egypt (Case No. ARB/02/9)2cotton processing and trading enterpriseclaims arising out of Egypt's series of measures which harmed the investment in EgyptUS-Egypt BITICSIDUS$ 365 million awarded plus interest and costsxRobert Briner (chair), L. Yves Fortier, Laurent AynsI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.2. CompensationII.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protection and securityII.8. International minimum standardsII.11. National treatmentII.15. Treaty interpretation

12802002EgyptUnited StatesAhmonseto, Inc. and others v. Arab Republic of Egypt (Case No. ARB/02/15)2textile enterpriseUS-Egypt BITICSIDUS$ 250 millionOngoingxPierre Tercier (President); Ibrahim Fadlallah; Alain Viandier

13812002JordanUnited KingdomJacobsGibb Limited v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (Case No. ARB/02/12)2waterway construction projectUK-Jordan BITICSIDunknownSettlement agreed by the parties and proceeding discontinued at their request; order taking note of the discontinuance issued on 13 October 2004x

14822002JordanItalySalini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (Case No. ARB/02/13)2dam construction projectclaim arising out of the disagreement between the Government of Jordan and the investor as to amount of the credits to be paid to the investorItaly-Jordan BITICSIDapprox US$ 28 millionclaims rejected on the meritsDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 9 November 2004;Award issued on 31 January 2006xI.4. Arbitrators' independence/ Duty of disclosureI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.12. PrecedentII.2. CompensationII.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.9. Most-favored-nation treatmentII.12. State contractsII.13. State responsibility

15832002LebanonFranceFrance Telecom v. Lebanon3GSM mobile telephone networkclaim arising out of the termination of a contract to operate a GSM mobile telephone networkFrance-Lebanon BITUNCITRALapprox US$ 952 million plus interestUS$ 266 million awarded (award not public)Award issued on 22 February 2005x

16842002MexicoUnited StatesCalmark Commercial Development Inc. v. the United Mexican StatesconstructionNAFTAUNCITRALUS$ 400,000 plus interestCurrently inactivex

17852002MexicoUnited StatesFireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Mexico (Case No. ARB(AF)/02/1)3debt instrumentsclaim arising out of Mexican Governemnt's conduct (following the financial crisis of 1997) allegedly permitting and financing a plan to pay the holders of peso-denominated debentures the full cash value of their debenture contrary to a previous plan agreeNAFTAICSID AFUS$ 50 millionclaim was rejected on the meritsDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 17 July 2003;Award issued in 17 July 2006xAlbert Jan Van den Berg (chair), Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Alberto Guillermo Saavedra OlavarrietaI.9. Jurisdiction II

18862002MexicoCanadaInternational Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. United Mexican States3gaming facilitiesclaims arising out of Mexico's closure of the investor's gaming facilities in MexicoNAFTAUNCITRALnot less than US$ 100 millionAward issued on 26 January 2006xAlbert Jan van den Berg (chair), Thomas W. Walden, Agustin Portal AriosaI.3. Applicable lawI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.1. Applicable lawII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.11. National treatmentII.15. Treaty interpretation

19872002MexicoUnited StatesGAMI Investments v. United Mexican States1sugar millsclaims arising out of Mexico's alleged failure to fulfil its regulatory functions with regard to the sugarcane industry and Mexico's expropriation of 22 sugar mills owned by the investorNAFTAUNCITRALUS$ 27,8 millionclaim was rejected on the meritsFinal Award issued on 15 November 2004xI.9. Jurisdiction IIII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.11. National treatmentII.13. State responsibility

20882002MexicoUnited StatesRobert J. Frank v. United Mexican States2vacation propertyclaims arising out of an alleged expropriation of vacation property in Mexico's Baja California areaNAFTAUNCITRALUS$ 1,5 millionunknownx

21892002PhilippinesSwitzerlandSGS v. Philippines (Case No. ARB/02/6)3service agreementclaims arising out of alleged breaches of an agreement concluded between the investor and the PhilippinesSwitzerland-Philippines BITICSIDapprox US$ 140 million plus interestpending (the Tribunal stayed the proceeding since domestic court should first exercise jurisdiction)Decision on Jurisdiction issued on 29 January 2004xI.1. AdmissibilityI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.11. Parallel international proceedingsI.12. PrecedentII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.12. State contractsII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

22902002PortugalGermanyGerman investor v. Portugal0unknownGermany-Portugal BITUNCITRALunknownsettled at an early stagex

23912002TurkeyUnited StatesPSEG Global Inc., The North American Coal Corporation (NACC), and Konya Ilgin Elektrik retim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of Turkey (Case No. ARB/02/5)1electric power generating station projectclaims arising out of the Government alleged action and inaction to destroy the investment (ie., by depriving the investor of the Treasury guarantee, long-term power purchase agreement and the Fund Agreement)US-Turkey BITICSIDUS$ 500 millionTribunal has jurisdiction over PSEG and Konya;Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over NACC;US$ 9,061,479.34 awarded plus part of the claimant's costsDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 4 June 2004;Award issued on 19 January 2007xI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction II

24922002United Arab EmiratesItalyHussein Nauman Soufraki v. United Arab Emirates (Case No. ARB/02/7)3port concessionclaim arising out of a concession agreement between the Dubai Department of Ports and Customs and the investorItaly-UAE BITICSIDbetween US$ 580 million and US$ 2.5 billionxL. Yves Fortier (chair), Aktham El Kholy, Stephen M. Schwebel;Annulment Committee: Florentino P. Feliciano (chair), Omar Nabulsi, Brigitte Stern

25932002United StatesCanadaKenex Ltd. v. United States2hemp enterpriseclaims arising from Drug Enforcement Administrations interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act as prohibiting the sale of products that cause the controlled substance THC to enter the human bodyNAFTAUNCITRALnot less than US$ 20 millionCurrently inactivex

26942002United StatesCanadaCanfor Corp. v. United States1forestry enterpriseclaims arising from certain U.S. antidumping, countervailing duty, and material injury determinations on softwood lumber imports from CanadaNAFTAUNCITRALnot less than US$ 250 millionclaim pending; consolidated with claims of Tembec and Terminal Forest Products on 17 December 2005; Tribunal dismissed all claims except those regarding the Byrd AmendmentOrder consolidating claims issued on 17 December 2005;Decision on Jurisdiction issued on 6 June 2006xI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction III.2. CompensationII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

2795 [237]2002VenezuelaCanadaFour Seasons Hotel Group v. Venezuela3hotelCanada-Venezuela FIPAUNCITRALdamages not quantifiedpendingx

2896 [137]2002UkraineLithuaniaTokios Tokels v. Ukraine (Case No. ARB/02/18)3printing enterpriseclaims arising from certain allegedly wrongful action by the Government of Ukraine vis--vis the investor including investigations, document seizures, public accusations of illegal conduct, judicial actions to invalidate contracts and seize assetsLithuania v. Ukraine BITICSIDunknownxMichael Mustill (chair), Daniel M. Price, Piero BernardiniI.1. AdmissibilityI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

[39]2002BarbadosCanadaScothills Ltd. v. Barbados3financial servicesBarbados-Canada FIPA(notice of intent)damages not quantifiedcase was settled on confidential termsx

1972003AlgeriaItalyConsortium Groupement L.E.S.I. - DIPENTA v. Algeria (Case No. ARB/03/8)2construction of a damItaly-Algeria BITICSIDapprox US$ 100 millionconcluded; Tribunal lacks jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 10 January 2005 (French)x

2982003ArgentinaBelgiumCamuzzi International SA v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/2)1gas supply and distribution enterpriseclaims arising out of the suspension of the licensee companies' tariff increases based on the US producer price index and the subsequent pesification of these tariffs pursuant to Law No. 25561Belgium & Luxembourg-Argentina BITICSIDunknownpending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 11 May 2005xI.1. AdmissibilityI.3. Applicable lawI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.1. Applicable lawII.15. Treaty interpretation

3992003ArgentinaChileMetalpar S.A. and Buen Aire S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/5)2motor vehicle enterpriseChile-Argentina BITICSIDunknownpending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 27 April 2006 (Spanish)x

41002003ArgentinaBelgiumCamuzzi International S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/7)3electricity distribution and transportation enterpriseBelgium & Luxembourg-Argentina BITICSIDunknownpending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 10 June 2005 (Spanish)x

51012003ArgentinaUnited StatesContinental Casualty Company v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/9)3insurance investmentclaims arising out a series of decrees and resolutions taken by Argentina (including restrictions on transfer, rescheduling of cash deposits, pesification of US dollar deposits, pesification and defaults on its debt obligations) that allegedly destroyed tUS-Argentina BITICSIDunknownpending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 22 February 2006xI.3. Applicable lawI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.16. Treaty's scope of application

61022003ArgentinaSpainGas Natural SDG, S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/10)1gas supply and distribution enterpriseclaim arising out of measures taken by the government of Argentina during its financial and economic crisis of 2001-2002Argentina-Spain BITICSIDunknownpending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on17 June 2005xI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.12. PrecedentII.9. Most-favored-nation treatment

71032003ArgentinaUnited StatesPioneer Natural Resources Company, Pioneer Natural Resources (Argentina) S.A. and Pioneer Natural Resources (Tierra del Fuego) S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/12)1hydrocarbon and electricity concessionsUS-Argentina BITICSIDunknowncase was settled on undisclosed termsOrder taking note of the discontinuance pursuant to Arbitration Rule 43(1) issued by the Tribunal on 23 June 2005x

81042003ArgentinaUnited StatesPan American Energy LLC and BP Argentina Exploration Company v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/13) (consolidated with Case No. ARB/04/8)1hydrocarbon and electricity concessionsclaims arising out of Argentina's measures affecting inter alia the exemption of hydrocarbon exports from export dues, the limitation of the royalty rate to 12%; the right to freely export hydrocarbons and to transfer funds abroad, the right to effect salUS-Argentina BITICSIDunknownpending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Preliminary Objections issued on 27 July 2006xI.1. AdmissibilityI.5. ConsolidationI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.12. PrecedentII.12. State contractsII.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

91052003ArgentinaUnited StatesEl Paso Energy International Company v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/15)1hydrocarbon and electricity concessionsclaims arising out of a series of measures taken by the Argentine government since December 2001US-Argentina BITICSIDunknownpending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 27 April 2006xI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.12. PrecedentII.12. State contractsII.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

101062003ArgentinaFranceSuez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua, S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/17)3water services concessionclaims arising out of alleged acts and omissions by the Government of Argentina including alleged failure or refusal to apply previously agreed adjustments to the tariff calculation and adjustment mechanisms in connection with a concession for water distrFrance-Argentina BIT and Spain-Argentina BITICSIDunknownpending; Tribunal has jurisdiction (discontinuance of proceedings with respect to Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe S.A. on April 14, 2006)Order in response to a Petition for Participation as Amicus Curiae issued on 17 March 2006;Decision on Jurisdiction issued on 16 May 2006xI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.12. PrecedentI.13. TransparencyII.9. Most-favored-nation treatmentII.15. Treaty interpretation

111072003ArgentinaSpainAguas Cordobesas, S.A., Suez, and Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/18)3water services concessionunknownICSIDunknownpending; the Tribunal suspends the proceedings on March 17, 2006x

121082003ArgentinaFranceSuez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/19)3water services concessionclaims arising out of alleged acts and omissions by the Government of Argentina including alleged failure or refusal to apply previously agreed adjustments to the tariff calculation and adjustment mechanisms in connection with a concession for water distrunknownICSIDup to US$ 1.7 billionpending (discontinuance of proceedings with respect to Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe S.A. on 14 April 2006)xJeswald W. Salacuse (chair), Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Pedro NikkenI.5. ConsolidationI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.12. PrecedentI.13. TransparencyII.9. Most-favored-nation treatmentII.15. Treaty interpretation

131092003ArgentinaSpainTelefnica S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/20)3telecommunications enterpriseSpain-Argentina BITICSIDdamages not quantifiedOngoingxGiorgio Sacerdotti (President); Charles N. Brower; Eduardo T. Siqueiros

141102003ArgentinaChileEnersis, S.A. and others v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/21)3electricity distribution enterpriseChile-Argentina BITICSIDunknownpending; the Tribunal suspends the proceedings on March 28, 2006x

151112003ArgentinaFranceElectricidad Argentina S.A. and EDF International S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/22)3electricity distribution enterpriseFrance-Agentina BITICSIDapprox $200 millionpending; the Tribunal suspends the proceedings on November 17, 2005x

161122003ArgentinaFranceEDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. and Lon Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/23)3electricity distribution enterpriseFrance-Agentina BIT; Belgium-Luxembourg Agentina BITICSIDapprox US$ 200 millionOngoingxWilliam W. Park (President); Gabrielle Kaufmann-Khler; Jess Remon (appointed following the resignation of Fernando de Trazegnies)

171132003ArgentinaUnited StatesUnisys v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/03/27)3information storage and management projectUnited States-Argentina BITICSIDunknownOngoingxJuan Fernandez-Armesto (President); Piero Bernardini; Jean Paul Chabaneix

181142003ArgentinaUnited KingdomAzurix v. Argentina (Case No. ARB/03/30)3water and sewage concessionUS-Argentina BITICSIDunknownPendingx

191152003ArgentinaUnited KingdomBritish Gas v. Argentina1gas enterpriseUK-Argentina BITUNCITRALdamages not quantified (estimated to in excess of US$ 100 million)pendingx

201162003ArgentinaUnited KingdomNational Grid v. Argentina3electricity enterpriseclaim arising in the context of the privatization program carried out by the Government of Argentina in the early 1990s, the guarantees offered to investors who brought assets in the electricity sector, and the measures taken by the Respondent to stem theUK-Argentina BITUNCITRALapprox between US$ 100 and 130 millionpending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 20 June 2006xI.3. Applicable lawI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.2. CompensationII.9. Most-favored-nation treatmentII.15. Treaty interpretation

211172003ArgentinaUnited KingdomAnglian Water Group (AWG) PLC v. Argentina3water enterpriseclaims arising out of alleged acts and omissions by the Government of Argentina including alleged failure or refusal to apply previously agreed adjustments to the tariff calculation and adjustment mechanisms in connection with a concession for water distrUK-Argentina BITUNCITRALdamages not quantified (estimated to in excess of US$ 100 million)pending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 3 August 2006xI.5. ConsolidationI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.12. PrecedentI.13. TransparencyII.9. Most-favored-nation treatmentII.15. Treaty interpretation

221182003BulgariaCyprusPlama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria (Case No. ARB/03/24)1oil refineryclaims arising out of the Bulgarian government, national legislative and judicial authorities and other public authorities and agencies' alleged deliberately creation of numerous grave problems for the investment as well as their refusal or unreasonably dEnergy Charter Treaty and Cyprus-Bulgaria BITICSIDUS$ 300 millionpending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 8 February 2005;Order on provisional measures issued on 6 September 2005xCarl F. Salans (chair), Albert Jan van den Berg, V.V. VeederI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.10. Interim measuresI.12. PrecedentII.2. CompensationII.9. Most-favored-nation treatmentII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

231192003ChilePeruPeru v. Chile0unknowndispute arising over the interpretation of BITChile-Peru BITUNCITRALunknownunknownx

241202003Congo, Democratic Republic ofUnited StatesMiminco LLC and others v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (Case No. ARB/03/14)1diamond mining concessionsUS-Democratic Republic of Congo BITICSIDunknownAward embodying the parties' settlement agreement rendered on 19 November 2007x

251212003EcuadorUnited StatesM.C.I. Power Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, (Case No. ARB/03/6)1electric power generation projectclaims arising out of the revocation of investor's operating permitUS-Ecuador BITICSIDunknownclaims partly dismissed on jurisdiction and dismissed the remainder on the meritsAward issued on 31 July 2007xRal E. Vinuesa (chair), Benjamin J. Greenberg, Jaime Irarrzabal C.I.8. Jurisdiction I I.9. Juridiction IIII.4 Expropriation direct)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.13. State responsabilityII.16. Treaty's scope of application

261222003EcuadorCanadaEncana v. Ecuador (LCIA Case No. UN3481)1oil exploitation enterpriseclaims arising out of Ecuador's action denying certain value added tax relief to investor's subsidiariesCanada-Ecuador FIPAUNCITRALapprox C$ 100 million (equivalent to approx US$ 70 million)final award partially rejects jurisdiction and dismisses the remainder of the investor's claimInterim Award on request for Interim Measures of Protection issued on 31 January 2004;Partial Award on Jurisdiction issued on 27 February 2004;Final Award issued on 3 February 2006xI.1. AdmissibilityI.6. Due processI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.10. Interim measuresI.13. TransparencyII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.4. Expropriation (direct)II.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

271232003EgyptUnited KingdomJoy Mining Machinery v. Egypt (Case No. ARB/03/11)1phosphate mining projectclaims arising out of the investor's alleged entitlement to have the bank guarantee released by the General Organization for Industrial and Mining Projects of the Republic of Egypt (IMC)UK-Egypt BITICSIDUK 2.5 million (equivalent to approx US$ 4.5 million) plus interest and the full value of the bank guarantees if not releasedTribunal lacks jurisdiction (During annulment phase settlement was agreed by the parties and proceeding discontinued at their request)Decision on Jurisdiction issued on 30 July 2004;Order taking note of the discontinuance pursuant to Arbitration Rule 43 (1) issued by the Tribunal on 16 December 2005xI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.2. Compensation

281242003El SalvadorSpainInceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador (Case No. ARB/03/26)2motor vehicle inspection facilityclaims arising from a decision by El Salvador's Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources not to proceed with a concession contract it had signed with the investorSpain-El Salvador BITICSIDnot less than US$ 120 millionTribunal lacks jurisdictionAward issued on 2 August 2006x

291252003France/United KingdomFrance/United KingdomEurotunnel Group v. France and UK2construction projectTreaty of Canterburyad-hocUS$ 1 billionpendingx

301262003GhanaMalaysiaTelekom Malaysia v. Ghana3stake in Ghana's national telecoms companyMalaysia-Ghana BITUNCITRALunknownpendingx

311272003HungaryCyprusADC Affiliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v. Republic of Hungary (Case No. ARB/03/16)2airport projectclaims arising out of the alleged take-over by the Government of Hungary of all activities of the investor's company in the Budapest airportCyprus-Hungary BITICSIDUS$ 244,373,347 including interest up to October 2006US$ 75 million awarded plus costs of US$ 7.6 millionAward issued on 2 October 2006xNeil Kaplan CBE QC (chair), Charles Brower, Albert Jan van den BergI.7. EvidenceI.9. Jurisdiction III.12. PrecedentII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.4. Expropriation (direct)II.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protection and securityII.12. State contractsII.13. State responsibilityII.16. Treaty's scope of applicati

321282003IndiaMauritiusCapital India Power Mauritius I and Energy Enterprises (Mauritius) Company v. Government of India2power plantIndia-Mauritius BITUNCITRALeach of the two investors is claiming approx US$ 600 millliondispute was settled by the parties (US$160 million to Betchel and US$145 to GE)x

331292003KyrgyzstanGibraltar (United Kingdom)Petrobart v. Kyrgyzstan (Arb. No. 126/2003)1gas transfer and supply agreementclaims arising out of the acts and conduct of the Kyrgyz Republic and its officials that have allegedly systematically frustrated the investment contract and dispossessed the investor of both the value of its established claim and the ability to recover iEnergy Charter TreatySCCUS$ 4,084,651 plus interestxI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.10. Interim measuresI.11. Parallel international proceedingsII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of applicationII.17. Treatment standards (additional)

341302003PakistanItalyImpregilo S.p.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Case No. ARB/03/3)2hydropower projectclaims arising out of Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority's (WAPDA) failure to turn over the land necessary to implement the construction contract, as well as of acts and omissions of WAPDA and the Engineer that allegedly impeded the investor'sItaly-Pakistan BITICSIDUS$ 450 million including interest and costspending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 22 April 2005xI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.2. CompensationII.9. Most-favored-nation treatmentII.13. State responsibilityII.16. Treaty's scope of application

351312003PakistanTurkeyBayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Case No. ARB/03/29)2highway construction contractclaims arising out of the implementation of a construction contract concluded between the National Highway Authority of Pakistan and the investorsTurkey-Pakistan BITICSIDapprox US$ 416 million plus interest and costspending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 14 November 2005xI.6. Due processI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.11. Parallel international proceedingsI.12. PrecedentII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.9. Most-favored-nation treatment

361322003PeruChileLucchetti S.A. and Lucchetti Peru, S.A. v. Republic of Peru (Case No. ARB/03/4)2pasta factoryclaims arising out of the annulment by the Municipality of Lima of construction permits previously granted to the investor and of local decrees purporting to expropriate the investor's land for environmental reasonsChile-Peru BITICSIDunknownxThomas Buergenthal (chair), Jan Paulsson, Bernardo M. Cremades;Annulment Committee: Hans Danelius (chair), Andrea Giardina; Franklin BermanII.16. Treaty's scope of application

371332003PhilippinesGermanyFraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (Case No. ARB/03/25)2construction of airport terminalClaim arising out of annulment of ContractGermany-Philippines BITICSIDapprox US$ 450 millionTribunal lacks jurisdictionAward issued on 27 July 2007xL. Yves Fortier (chair), Bernardo M. Cremades, W. Michael Reisman

381342003PolandNetherlandsEureko v. Poland3insurance enterpriseclaim arising out of certain specific actions by the Minister of the State Treasury of the Poland which allegedly left the corporate governance of the investor and its subsidiaries in a state of disarrayNetherlands-Poland BITad-hocunknownclaim was successful; damages not yet quantifiedPartial Award on Liability issued on 19 August 2005xI.1. AdmissibilityI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protection and securityII.12. State contractsII.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of applicati

391352003RomaniaPolandAn investor-state dispute between a Polish investor and Romania2textiles enterprisePoland-Romania BITUNCITRAL; administered at PCAapprox US$ 15 millioncase was settled on undisclosed terms on May 24, 2004x

401362003Saudi ArabiaGermanyEd. Zblin AG v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/01)2construction of university facilitiesGermany-Saudi Arabia BITICSIDunknowncase was settled on undisclosed termsOrder taking note of the discontinuance pursuant to Arbitration Rule 44 issued by the Acting Secretary-General on 22 July 2003x

411372003United StatesCanadaGlamis Gold Ltd. v. United States1gold mine in USclaims arising from certain federal government actions and California state measures regarding open-pit mining operations and the development of a proposed gold mine in Imperial County, CaliforniaNAFTAUNCITRALnot less than US$ 50 millionpendingxMichael K. Young (chair), David C. Caron, Kenneth D. Hubbard

421382003UnknownUnknownAn investor-state dispute under a BIT between a European investor and an African nation0unknownBIT between an African nation and a European nationICCunknownpendingx

431392003UnknownUnknownAn investor-state dispute under a BIT concluded between an Eastern European nation and a Latin American nation0unknownBIT between an Eastern European nation and a Latin American nationICCunknownpendingx

44140 [195]2003ArgentinaCanadaScotiabank (BNS) v. Argentina3financial servicesArgentina-Canada FIPAUNCITRALapprox US$ 600 millionpending (chairman to be appointed for the case)x

2003Costa RicaCanadaMr Rajpal v. Costa Ricareal estateCanada-Costa Rica FIPA(notice of intent)US$ 150,000pending (possible connection with Case No. ARB(AF)/07/3)x

2003Costa RicaCanadaVannessa Ventures v. Costa Rica1miningCanada-Costa Rica FIPA(notice of intent)damages not quantifiedpending [CHECK WITH ADRIANA]x

11412004ArgentinaFranceTotal S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/04/1)1gas production and distribution/power generation projectFrance-Argentina BITICSIDapprox US$ 1 billionOngoing;Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on jurisdiction issued on 25 August 2006xGiorgio Sacerdoti (chair), Luis Herrera Marcano, Henri C. AlvarezI.1. Admissibility I.3. Applicable law I.8. Juridiction I

21422004ArgentinaFranceSAUR International v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/04/4)3water and sewage concessionFrance-Argentina BITICSIDunknownOngoingxJuan Fernandez -Armesto (President); Bernard Hanotiau; Christian Tomuschat

31432004ArgentinaUnited StatesBP America Production Company, Pan American Sur SRL, Pan American Fueguina, SRL and Pan American Continental SRLothers v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/04/8) (consolidated with Case No. ARB/03/13)3hydrocarbon concession and electricity generation projectclaims arising out of Argentina's measures affecting inter alia the exemption of hydrocarbon exports from export dues, the limitation of the royalty rate to 12%; the right to freely export hydrocarbons and to transfer funds abroad, the right to effect salUS-Argentina BITICSIDunknownpending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Preliminary Objections issued on 27 July 2006xI.1. AdmissibilityI.5. ConsolidationI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.12. PrecedentII.12. State contractsII.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

41442004ArgentinaUnited StatesCIT Group Inc. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/04/9)3leasing enterpriseUS-Argentina BITICSIDUS$ 120 millionOngoingxPierre-Marie Dupuy (President); Claus von Wobeser; Christian Tomuschat

51452004ArgentinaGermanyWintershall Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/04/14)1gas and oil productionGermany-Argentina BITICSIDunknownOngoingxFali S. Nariman (President); Santiago Torres Bernardez; Piero Bernadini

61462004ArgentinaUnited StatesMobil Exploration and Development Inc. Suc. Argentina and Mobil Argentina S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/04/16)1gas production concessionsUS-Argentina BITICSIDunknownPending (the Claimants file a second ancillary claim on October 23, 2007x

71472004ArgentinaFranceFrance Telecom v. Argentina (Case No. ARB/04/18)3telecommunication concessionFrance-Argentina BITICSIDunknownsettlement agreed by the parties and proceeding discontinuedOrder taking note of the discontinuance pursuant to Arbitration Rule 44 issued by the Acting Secretary-General on 30 March 2006x

81482004ArgentinaUnited StatesRGA Reinsurance Company v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/04/20)3financial reinsurance servicesUS-Argentina BITICSIDunknownSettlement agreed by the parties and proceeding discontinued at their request (Order taking note of the discontinuance issued by the Tribunal on September 14, 2006 pursuant to Arbitration Rule 43(1)).xFali S. Nariman (President); Piero Bernardini; Georges Abi-Saab

91492004ChileArgentinaSociedad Annima Eduardo Vieira v. Republic of Chile (Case No. ARB/04/7)1fisheries companyChile-Argentine BITICSIDunknownTribunal lacks jurisdictionAward issued on 21 August 2007xClaus von Wobeser (chair), Susana B. Czar de Zalduendo, W. Michael Reisman

101502004CroatiaCanadaUlemek (Select Office Equipment) v. Croatia0undisclosedCanada-Croatia FIPAUNCITRALunknownx

111512004Czech RepublicNetherlandsEastern Sugar v. Czech Republic1agricultural investmentDutch-Czech Republic BITUNCITRALEuro 88,537,000 plus interestapprox US$ 25,539,995, plus annual interest of 7%;decision on arbitration costs to be rendered at a later datePartial Award issued on 27 March 2007xPierre A. Karrer (chair); Robert Volterra; Emmanuel GaillardI.1. AdmissibilityI.3. Applicable lawI.8. Jurisdiction II.12. precedentII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protection and securityII.13. State responsability

121522004EcuadorUnited StatesDuke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil SA v. Republic of Ecuador (Case No. ARB/04/19)3power generation facilitiesUS-Ecuador BITICSIDunknownOngoingxGabrielle Kaufmann-Khler (President); Enrique Gomez-Pinzon; Albert Jan Van den Berg

131532004EgyptBelgiumJan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13)2dredging projectclaim arising out of the alleged deception and misrepresentation by the Government of Egypt in connection with a contract entered between the investors and the Suez Canal Authority for the widening and deepening of parts of the Suez CanalBenelux-Egypt BITICSIDat least US$ 81 million plus interestpending; Tribunal has jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 16 June 2006xI.3. Applicable lawI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction III.12. PrecedentII.2. CompensationII.13. State responsibilityII.16. Treaty's scope of application

141542004EstoniaFinlandOKO Osuuspankkien Keskuspankki Oyj and others v. Republic of Estonia (Case No. ARB/04/6)3debt instrumentsClaims arising out of the alleged non-payment of a loan which had been made to a joint-venture Estonian companyGermany-Estonia BIT and Finland-Estonia BITICSIDunknownInvestor prevailed (award not public)Award issued on 19 November 2007 (not public)x

151552004HungaryNorwayTelenor Mobile Communications AS v. Republic of Hungary (Case No. ARB/04/153telecommunication concessionNorway-Hungary BITICSIDapproximately US$ 76-152 millionTribunal lacks jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued on 13 September 2006x

161562004IndiaNetherlandsOffshore Power Production C.V., Travamark Two B.V., EFS India-Energy B.V., Enron B.V., and Indian Power Investments B.V. (Netherlands) v. India2power plantNetherlands-India BITUNCITRALOver US$ 4 billionDispute was settled as part of a successful restructuringx

171572004IndiaNetherlandsABN Amro N.V. v. India2related to financing of Dabhol Power PlantNetherlands-India BITUNCITRALunknowncase was settled on undisclosed termsx

181582004IndiaUnited KingdomANZEF Ltd. V. India2related to financing of Dabhol Power PlantUK-India BITUNCITRALunknowncase was settled on undisclosed termsx

191592004IndiaFranceBNP Paribas v. India2related to financing of Dabhol Power PlantFrance-India BITUNCITRALunknowncase was settled on undisclosed termsx

201602004IndiaFranceCredit Lyonnais SA, (now Calyon SA) v. India2related to financing of Dabhol Power PlantFrance-India BITUNCITRALunknowncase was settled on undisclosed termsx

211612004IndiaAustriaErste Bank Der Oesterreichischen Sparkassen AG v. India2related to financing of Dabhol Power PlantAustria-India BITUNCITRALunknowncase was settled on undisclosed termsx

221622004IndiaUnited KingdomStandard Chartered Bank v. India2related to financing of Dabhol Power PlantUK-India BITUNCITRALunknowncase was settled on undisclosed termsx

231632004IndiaSwitzerlandCredit Suisse First Boston v. India2related to financing of Dabhol Power PlantSwitzerland-India BITUNCITRALunknowncase was settled on undisclosed termsx

241642004IndonesiaSingapore [Singaporean subsidiary of Cemex SA de CV (Mexico)]Cemex Asia Holdings Ltd v. Indonesia (Case No. ARB/04/3)2cement production enterprise1987 ASEANAgreement for the Promotion and Protection of InvestmentsICSIDapprox US$ 400 millionSettlement agreed by the partiesAward embodying the parties settlement agreement rendered on 23 February 2007, pursuant to Arbitration Rule 43(2)xL. Yves Fortier (President), Robert von Mehren, Brigitte Stern

251652004MexicoUnited StatesArcher Daniels Midland and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. v. United Mexican States (Case No. ARB(AF)/04/5)2soft drink sweetener production enterpriseNAFTAICSID AFunknownpending; consolidation request rejected on 20 May 2005x

261662004MexicoUnited StatesCorn Products International, Inc. v. United Mexican States (Case No. ARB(AF)/04/1)2high fructose corn syrup enterpriseNAFTAICSID AFUS$ 325 millionpending; consolidation request rejected on 20 May 2005x

271672004MexicoFranceGemplus, S.A., SLP, S.A., and Gemplus Industrial S.A. de C.V. v. United Mexican States (Case No. ARB(AF)/04/3)3concession agreement to operate the national motor vehicles registryFrance-Mexico BITICSID AFunknownOngoingxV.V. Veeder (President); L. Yves For; Eduardo Magallon Gom

281682004MexicoArgentinaTalsud, S.A. v. United Mexican States (Case No. ARB(AF)/04/4)3concession agreement to operate the national motor vehicles registryArgentina-Mexico BITICSID AFunknownOngoingxV.V. Veeder (President); L. Yves For; Eduardo Magallon Gom

291692004Moldova, Republic ofRussiaRussian investor (individual) v. Republic of Moldova0unknownRussia-Moldova BITSCCunknownpendingx

301702004Moldova, Republic ofRussiaIurii Bogdanov, Agurdino-Invest Ltd and Agurdino-Chimia JSC v. Republic of Moldova3privatization contractclaims arising out of Moldovan Department of Privatization's refusal to fully compensate the value of the investor's assets transferred to the State in accordance with a Privatization ContractRussia-Moldova BITSCCnot less than Lei 621,021 (equivalent to US$ 47,000) plus interestLei 310,000 (equivalent to approx US$ 22,000) awarded plus interest amounting to Lei 384,896 (equivalent to approx US$ 28,000)Award issued on 22 Septmeber 2005xI.1. AdmissibilityI.3. Applicable lawI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.9. Jurisdiction IIII.1. Applicable lawII.2. CompensationII.5. Expropriation (indirect)II.6. Fair and equitable treatmentII.7. Full protection and securityII.13. State responsibilityII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

311712004MongoliaItalyAlstom Power Italia SpA and Alstom SpA v. Republic of Mongolia (Case No. ARB/04/10)1thermal energy station projectEnergy Charter Treaty and Italy-Mongolia BITICSIDunknownsettlement agreed by the parties and proceeding discontinued at their requestOrder taking note of the discontinuance pursuant to Arbitration Rule 43(1) issued by the Tribunal on 13 March 2006x

321722004PolandUnited StatesCargill Incorporated v. Republic of Poland (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/2)2isoglucose productionUS-Poland BITUNCITRAL (This case was switched from an ICSID case to an UNCITRAL case at the request of the parties)unknownpendingxGabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Emmanuel Gaillard; Bernard Hanotiau

331732004Russian FederationBelgiumVladimir Berschader and Michael Berschader v. Russian Federation2construction projectclaims arising over payments under a construction contract for the rehabilitation of the Russian Supreme Court buildingUSSR-Belgium & Luxemburg BITSCCunknownTribunal lacks jurisdictionDecision on Jurisdiction issued April 2006 (not public)x

341742004SloveniaNetherlandsInterbrew v. Slovenia (Case No. ARB/04/17)2breweryNetherlands-Slovenia BITICSIDunknownsettled by the partiesOrder taking note of the discontinuance pursuant to Arbitration Rule 44 issued by the Tribunal on 18 July 2005x

351752004TunisiaNetherlands AntillesABCI Investments v. Tunisia (Case No. ARB/04/12)3acquisition of sharesSubmitted on basis of BIT and Foreign Investment LawICSIDunknownPending (the Tribunal held a first session without the parties by telephone conference on 3 December 2007)xFrancisco Orrego Vicuna (chair), Piero Bernardini, Brigitte Stern

361762004TurkeyUnited StatesMotorola Credit Corporation, Inc. v. Republic of Turkey (Case No. ARB/04/21)3cellular telecommunications networkUS-Turkey BITICSIDunknownOrder taking note of the discontinuance pursuant to Arbitration Rule 43(1) issued by the Tribunal on 21 November 2005xHenri C. Alvarez (chair), Jan Paulsson, Pierre Mayer

371772004UkraineUnited StatesWestern NIS Enterprise Fund v. Ukraine (Case No. ARB/04/2)3sunflower oil joint ventureclaims arising out of the failure of the Ukrainian courts to enforce a commercial arbitration awardUS-Ukraine BITICSIDunknownsettlement agreed by the parties and proceeding discontinued at their requestOrder taking note of the discontinuance pursuant to Arbitration Rule 43(1) issued by the Tribunal on 1 June 2006xRodrigo Oreamuno (chair), Jan Paulsson, Michael C. Pryles

381782004United StatesCanadaTerminal Forest Products Ltd. v. United States1forestry enterpriseclaims arising from certain U.S. antidumping, countervailing duty, and material injury determinations on softwood lumber imports from CanadaNAFTAUNCITRALnot less than US$ 90 millionpending;consolidated with claims of Canfor and Tembec on 17 December 2005;Tribunal dismissed all claims except those regarding the Byrd AmendmentOrder consolidating claims issued on 17 December 2005;Decision on Jurisdiction issued on 6 June 2006xI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction III.2. CompensationII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

391792004United StatesCanadaTembec Inc. et al. v. United States1forestry enterpriseclaims arising from certain U.S. antidumping, countervailing duty, and material injury determinations on softwood lumber imports from CanadaNAFTAUNCITRALnot less than US$ 200 millionpending;consolidated with claims of Canfor and Terminal Forest on 17 December 2005;Tembec withdrew from consolidation proceeding on 10 January 2006 and filed a motion in U.S. court seeking to vacate the consolidation orderxII.2. Compensation

401802004United StatesCanadaGrand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., et.al. v. United States2tobacco enterpriseclaims arising from 1998 Master Settlement Agreement between major tobacco companies and state attorneys general and subsequent implementing legislationNAFTAUNCITRALnot less than US$ 340 millionclaim pending; claims regarding measures adopted prior to 12 March 2001 were dismissed; claimants oral motion to add claims regarding allocable share amendments was grantedDecision on Objections to Jurisdiction issued on 20 July 2006xI.6. Due processI.7. EvidenceI.8. Jurisdiction II.12. PrecedentII.15. Treaty interpretationII.16. Treaty's scope of application

411812004CanadaUnited StatesContractual Obligation Productions, LLC, Charles Robert Underwood & Carl Paolino v. Canada3film productionNAFTAUNCITRALUS$ 20 millionCurrently inactivex

421822004CanadaUnited StatesAlbert Connolly v. CanadaunknownNAFTAUNCITRALdamages not quantifiedCurrently inactive

431832004UnknownUnknownInvestor-state dispute under a BIT between a Western European nation and a Latin American nation0unknownWest European Nation and Latin American Nation BITICCunknownunknownx

441842004VenezuelaCanadaVannessa Ventures Ltd v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Case No. ARB(AF)/04/6)1gold and copper mining projectCanada-Venezuela FIPAICSID AFUS$ 1.04 millionpendingxRobert Briner (chair), Charles N. Brower, Brigitte Stern

451852004Viet NamNetherlandsTrinh Vinh Binh and Binh Chau Joint stock Company v. Socialist Republic of Vietnam2frozen food factory and real estate investmentsClaims arising out of criminal conviction of Mr Trinh as well as the seizure of his assetsNetherlands-Vietnam BITUNCITRAL (Being administered at SCC)unknownClaims was settled on co