Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T22:33:55.457Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ampal-American Israel Corp., EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, EGI-Series Investments LLC, BSS-EMG Investors LLC and Fischer v. Arab Republic of Egypt

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  01 February 2016 ; 21 February 2017 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2022

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction – Foreign investor Foreign control – Substantial interest – Whether the investors satisfied the conditions of nationality under the BIT – Whether nationals of the home State had a substantial interest in the investors – Whether a substantial interest needed to be a controlling or a majority interest

Jurisdiction – Foreign investor Denial of benefits – Requirement to consult – Whether the host State promptly consulted the home State to seek a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter – Whether exercising a denial-of-benefits clause amounted to withdrawing unilaterally a previously given consent – Whether the denial-of-benefits clause could be exercised after the investment claim had been filed

Jurisdiction – Investment – Indirect investment – Burden of proof Whether an investor proved its alleged beneficial interest in an investment through a corporate vehicle

Jurisdiction – Consent – Contract claims – Whether the claim was purely contractual – Whether the investors submitted a treaty claim

Jurisdiction – Consent – Exclusions and reservations – Taxation measures – Whether a carve-out clause for taxation barred the investors’ claims of expropriation

Jurisdiction – Investment Legality – Corruption – Public policy – Burden of proof – Whether the State discharged its burden of proof in establishing that the investment was illegal and made in corrupt circumstances

Admissibility – Abuse of process – Whether resorting to four parallel arbitrations with the same factual matrix, same witnesses and many identical claims was abusive – Whether the nature of those parallel claims was identical – Whether pursuit of the same claim before different investment tribunals should be allowed – Whether an investor should make an election to resolve overlapping claims in parallel proceedings

State responsibility – Attribution – State-owned entity – Contract – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 11 – Whether the State was liable for contractual obligations undertaken by two State entities

Expropriation – Compensation – Legal stability – Tax exemption – Whether a licence granting taxation privileges constituted a protected investment – Whether the revocation of a licence constituted an expropriation – Whether the investors had the right to retain the taxation privileges beyond the initial period of the licence

Full protection and security – Due diligence – Civil unrest – Whether the State took reasonable precautionary, preventive and remedial measures to protect the physical security of a pipeline network from sabotage

Procedure – Res judicata – Contract – Privity of interest – Force majeure – Whether the factual findings on the sabotage of a pipeline network in a parallel commercial arbitration were binding on the tribunal – Whether the legal findings on contractual termination in a parallel commercial arbitration were binding on the tribunal

Expropriation – Unlawful expropriation – Contract – Whether State entities wrongfully terminated a contract under the proper law – Whether unlawful termination of a contract was tantamount to an unlawful expropriation

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)