Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — Nationality — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Dual nationality — Effective nationality — Whether an effective nationality test must be read into Article 25 of the ICSID Convention — Whether the explicit exclusion from jurisdiction of dual nationals who held the nationality of the host State was the only jurisdictional bar related to a natural person’s nationality under the ICSID Convention

Applicable law — Customary international law — Diplomatic protection — Effective nationality — ICSID Convention, Article 27(1) — Whether the rules of customary international law applicable in the context of diplomatic protection applied to determine nationality in investor–State arbitration

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Salini test — Legality — Whether the four elements of the Salini test must necessarily be met to determine the existence of an investment — Whether the three objective criteria of contribution, duration and risk were both necessary and sufficient to define an investment within the framework of the ICSID Convention — Whether the applicable BIT imposed further limits on protected investments — Whether the investment fell within the scope of the requirement of legality under municipal law

Jurisdiction — Investment — Shares — Evidence — Burden of proof — Whether the share certificates were valid under the law of the host State — Whether the heavy burden of proof of alleged impropriety was met — Whether the claimant held legal title over the share certificates said to constitute the investment

Evidence — Burden of proof — Impropriety — Whether the burden of proof of any allegations of impropriety was particularly heavy

Costs — Frivolous proceedings — ICSID Convention, Article 61(2) — ICSID Arbitration Rule 28 — Whether an arbitral tribunal had discretion in frivolous proceedings to allocate the arbitration costs and the legal fees and expenses between the parties by ordering the losing party to bear in full the costs of the arbitration and the entirety of the legal fees and expenses incurred by both parties

Procedure — Summary dismissal — ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) — Manifestly without legal merit — Whether the tribunal had all relevant materials to make a decision — Whether the tribunal could dispose of the objection to jurisdiction clearly with relative ease

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Double-barrelled test — Whether the scope of investment under the ICSID Convention and definition of investment under the BIT comprised two separate requirements

Jurisdiction — Investment — Contract — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether contracts for the sale and purchase of consumer goods satisfied the objective and autonomous concept of investment — Whether undertakings by State officials transformed the contracts into a protected investment

Jurisdiction — Investment — Contract — Whether contracts satisfied the definition of investment under the BIT as claims for money associated with an investment — Whether contracts satisfied the definition of investment under the BIT as rights conferred by law or contract

Investment — Interpretation — Ordinary meaning — VCLT, Article 31 — Whether the definition of investment was intended to cover a broad range of investments — Whether the definition of investment depended on the type of investment — Whether the definition of investment depended on the way in which an investment was made

Interpretation — Meaning of “directly” — VCLT, Article 31 — Ordinary meaning — Good faith — Context — Object and purpose — Whether an ordinary meaning of the term “directly” could be ascertained — Whether “directly” referred to an investment’s origin or its connection with an investor

Interpretation — Supplementary means of interpretation — Travaux préparatoires — Circumstances of conclusion — VCLT, Article 31 — VCLT, Article 32 — Explanatory notes — Agreed minutes of formal consultations — Whether recourse to supplementary means was required — Whether certain supplementary means of interpretation were admissible

Interpretation — Ambiguous or obscure meaning — Manifestly absurd or unreasonable result — VCLT, Article 31 — VCLT, Article 32 — Whether the method under Article 31 of the VCLT left the meaning of a term ambiguous or obscure — Whether the method under Article 31 of the VCLT led to a result which was manifestly absurd or unreasonable

Most-favoured-nation treatment — Jurisdiction — Investment — Whether a most-favoured nation clause was limited to substantive protections — Whether a most-favoured nation clause could expand the definitions of investor or investment

Admissibility — Shareholder claims — Whether a shareholder could seek damages caused to its subsidiary by the treatment of other companies in which that subsidiary held shares

Costs — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 40 — Whether costs of arbitration should be borne by the unsuccessful party — Whether apportionment of the costs of arbitration was reasonable taking into account the circumstances

Jurisdiction — Investment — Contract — Whether a dispute arising out of and in relation to sovereign bonds was an investment treaty dispute rather than a mere contractual dispute — Whether forum selection clauses influenced the place where the alleged investment was deemed to have been made

Jurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — Contribution — Interpretation — Whether security entitlements derived from sovereign bonds constituted obligations or public securities within the definition of investment under the BIT — Whether the investors had made contributions leading to the creation of value that the contracting parties intended to protect under the BIT

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Salini test — Contribution — Whether the Salini test was the right approach to determine whether an investment had been made — Whether protection of security entitlements derived from sovereign bonds was consistent with the spirit and aim of the ICSID Convention — Whether the ICSID Convention sets the outer limits of consent given under the BIT

Jurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — Legality — Whether the investment was made in compliance with municipal law

Jurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — Territory — Economic development — Whether the investment was made in the territory of the host State — Whether it was sufficient for the invested funds to have supported the host State’s economic development — Whether it was necessary for investments of a purely financial nature to be linked to a specific economic enterprise or operation taking place in the territory of the host State

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — Nationality — Timing — Whether the investors held the nationality of the home State — Whether natural and juridical persons met certain requirements prior to the registration of the request for arbitration

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — Mass claim — Burden of proof — Whether the investors bore the burden to prove each of them met the requirements of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — Sovereign bonds — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether a party that has purchased security entitlements derived from sovereign bonds through layers of intermediaries may still be classified as the party having made an investment

Jurisdiction — Consent — Fraud — Whether the State may invoke the investor’s allegedly fraudulent consent to challenge the validity of the agreement to arbitrate the dispute

Jurisdiction — Consent — Mass claim — Procedure — Whether specific consent was required in regard to the procedure for arbitration in the form of collective proceedings or collective mass claims

Jurisdiction — Consent — Prior consultation — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether prior consultation and domestic litigation requirements in the dispute resolution clause of a BIT were relevant to whether the host State consented to arbitration

Admissibility — Mass claim — ICSID Convention — Denial of justice — Whether the mass aspect of a dispute was admissible under the current ICSID framework — Whether to deny the admissibility of mass claims would be a denial of justice

Admissibility — Prior consultation — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether the failure to meet the requirements of prior consultation and domestic litigation rendered the claims inadmissible — Whether municipal courts would have resolved the dispute within 18 months

Procedure — Mass claim — ICSID Convention — ICSID Arbitration Rules — Interpretation — Whether the silence of the ICSID framework in respect of collective proceedings was to be interpreted as a gap — Whether a tribunal may adapt the ICSID Arbitration Rules to enable the group examination of claims in accordance with the object and purpose of the ICSID Convention — Whether the claims of multiple claimants were identical or sufficiently homogeneous to allow for their group examination — Whether group examination would meet standards of due process

Procedure — Withdrawal — Mass claim — ICSID Institution Rule 8 — Whether certain investors had withdrawn their consent prior to registration of the request for arbitration

Procedure — Discontinuance — Mass claim — ICSID Arbitration Rule 44 — Whether the request of certain investors for discontinuance should be granted — Whether discontinuance of some investors required the termination of the arbitration

Admissibility — Abuse of rights — Agent — ICSID Arbitration Rule 18 — Whether the ulterior interests of a third party acting as agent in the arbitration constituted an abuse of rights by the investors

Procedure — Evidence — ICSID Arbitration Rule 25 — Request for arbitration — ICSID Convention, Article 36(2) — Whether updated annexes to the request for arbitration containing information related to each investor were admissible — Whether the introduction of evidence violated the requirements of the request for arbitration by unilaterally updating the identity of the parties

Costs — Discontinuance — Whether investors who discontinued their participation in the proceeding should bear their own legal costs and a share of the arbitration costs

Interpretation — ICSID Convention — Policy — Whether policy considerations were relevant to determine whether the tribunal had jurisdiction over claims arising from sovereign bonds — Whether policy considerations were relevant to determine whether mass claims were admissible

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — ICSID Convention, Article 25(2)(b) — Foreign nationality — Ownership or control — Investment — Economic contribution — Whether the scope of protection under the BIT for companies under foreign control fell within the outer limit of ICSID jurisdiction — Whether the national of another contracting State had made an investment — Whether establishing foreign ownership under the BIT was sufficient in light of the requirement for foreign control in the ICSID Convention

Jurisdiction — Investment — Interpretation — “Every kind of investment” — Economic contribution — Origin of capital — Whether the definition of investment required an economic contribution by a foreign national — Whether origin of capital was relevant to the existence of an investment

Jurisdiction — Investment — Interpretation — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Whether the inherent meaning of investment under ICSID jurisprudence was relevant in determining ownership or control by a foreign national — Whether there was an economic arrangement requiring a contribution to make a profit and some degree of risk

Jurisdiction — Investment — Foreign nationality — Ownership or control — Evidence — Burden of proof — Adverse inferences — Whether the burden of proof can shift from the claimant to the State due to seizure of document — Whether adverse inferences may be drawn from the failure to produce documents

Annulment — Failure to state reasons — Manifest excess of powers — Serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Foreign nationality — Applicable law — Obiter dictum — Translation — Whether a tribunal’s misapplication of or failure to apply the applicable law justified annulment if its interpretation was reasonable or tenable — Whether reliance on an incorrect translation warranted annulment if the reasoning was incidental to the operative part of the award — Whether obiter dictum issued without hearing warranted annulment

Jurisdiction — Investment — Derivative transactions — Interpretation — Claims to money used to create an economic value — Claims to money associated with an investment — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment under the BIT

Jurisdiction — Investment — Territorial requirement — Derivative transactions — Whether a hedging agreement satisfied the condition of territorial nexus to the host State

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Salini test — Contribution to economic development — Regularity of profit and return — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment — Whether all five elements of the Salini test were legal criteria for an investment under ICSID jurisdiction

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Ordinary commercial transaction — Contingent liability — Whether a hedging agreement was an ordinary commercial transaction or a contingent liability

Jurisdiction — Contract — State-owned entity — Municipal law — Whether a hedging agreement was void because the transaction was outside a State-owned entity’s statutory authority

State responsibility — Attribution — Judicial acts — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a superior court was an organ of the host State

State responsibility — Attribution — Central bank — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a central bank was an organ of the host State

State responsibility — Attribution — State-owned entity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 — Whether a State-owned entity was an organ of the State — Whether actions of a State-owned entity were attributable to the State as an exercise of governmental authority — Whether a State-owned entity was acting under instructions or the direction and control of the State

Fair and equitable treatment — Judicial acts — Due process — Interim order — Political motive — Whether court orders violated the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether public statements of a senior judge evidenced the political motive of court orders

Fair and equitable treatment — Autonomous standard — Interpretation — Minimum standard of treatment — Whether the standard of fair and equitable treatment was materially different from customary international law

Fair and equitable treatment — Government investigation — Due process — Bad faith — Transparency — Whether a central bank’s investigation violated the standard of fair and equitable treatment

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Derivative transaction — Substantial deprivation — Debt recovery — Municipal law — Whether the subsistence of a contractual debt and the possibility to claim under the chosen law of a third State prevented a finding of expropriation — Whether the possibility of recovery in a third State was to be assessed as a prerequisite in the cause of action of expropriation or as a matter of causation and quantum

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Substantial deprivation — Legitimate regulatory authority — Proportionality — Whether an interference with contractual rights was an exercise of the host State’s legitimate regulatory authority — Whether the regulatory measures were proportionate

Remedies — Damages — Causation — Contract — Debt recovery — Whether the claimant suffered damages if it had the possibility to recover a contractual debt in the courts of a third State

Costs — Indemnity — Egregious breach — Bad faith — Whether the egregious nature of the host State’s breaches of its international obligations meant the claimant was entitled to full recovery of its costs, legal fees and expenses

Jurisdiction — Dispute — Investment — Minority or indirect shareholding — Whether the dispute concerned an investment of a national or company of one party to the BIT in the territory of the other party — Whether the BIT required merely an ownership interest in an asset or required an association of belonging or contribution of value

Interpretation — Investment “of” a national or company — VCLT, Article 31 — Whether the ordinary meaning and context indicated a requirement of passive ownership or active investment — Whether the object and purpose of the BIT supported a requirement of the claimant taking on an active role of direction or control

Interpretation — Supplementary means of interpretation — VCLT, Article 32 — Whether provisions in other BITs confirmed or determined the meaning of the disputed treaty text — Whether case law confirmed or determined the meaning of the disputed treaty text

Evidence — Direction or control — Whether any evidence had been adduced to show that the investment was made at the direction of the claimant

Procedure — Judicial economy — ICSID Convention, Article 48(3) — Whether the tribunal dealt with every question submitted — Whether policy considerations weighed against gratuitous resolution of factually and legally complex questions

Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Multi-party proceedings — Interpretation — Whether multi-party proceedings were compatible with the ICSID system and the BIT — Whether original submission of a multi-party proceeding required an act of consent on the part of the respondent beyond the general jurisdictional requirement of written consent — Whether the number of claimants affected the scope of the respondent’s consent to arbitration — Whether contractually unrelated persons could bring a claim together — Whether the number of claimants would prevent the tribunal from conducting the proceedings in accordance with the principles of fairness and due process

Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — ICSID Convention, Article 36 — Due authorisation — Power of attorney — Whether the request for arbitration should have been signed by the claimants themselves — Whether the power of attorney in favour of counsel was validly executed — Whether the power of attorney empowered counsel to file the request for arbitration on behalf of the claimants

Jurisdiction — Nationality — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — ICSID Convention, Article 43 — Burden of proof — Whether the burden of proof fell on the respondent to disprove that the claimants were not Italian nationals — Whether the evidentiary burden was satisfied through the identity documents submitted by the claimants

Jurisdiction — Standing — Portfolio investment — Sovereign bonds — Domestic litigation — Whether the claimants lacked locus standi because of their remote connection with the underlying bonds — Whether certain claims brought before domestic courts against the issuers of security entitlement deprived the claimants of their locus standi in international arbitration

Jurisdiction — Investment — Portfolio investment — Sovereign bonds — Territorial requirement — Interpretation — Whether security entitlements related to sovereign bonds were investments covered by the BIT

Jurisdiction — Investment — Portfolio investment — Sovereign bonds — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — VCLT, Article 31 — Ordinary meaning — VCLT, Article 32 — Supplementary means — Whether the tribunal must interpret the meaning of investment in accordance with its ordinary meaning — Whether the tribunal must interpret the meaning of investment using supplementary means

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Salini test — Whether the four elements of the Salini test expressed mandatory jurisdictional requirements — Whether security entitlements issued in respect of sovereign bonds met the Salini test

Jurisdiction — Sovereign acts — Whether the impugned measures were sovereign acts constituting prima facie breaches of the BIT

Jurisdiction — Domestic litigation requirement — Consultation — Effective redress — Whether the provisions under the BIT laid down mandatory jurisdictional requirements — Whether the duty to consult was satisfied by the claimants — Whether the claimants violated the requirement to have recourse to the domestic courts prior to their request for international arbitration

Jurisdiction — Consent — Revocation — Municipal law — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether a State may revoke consent to arbitration by repealing municipal law

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Municipal law — Whether investments were excluded from jurisdiction by express exceptions under municipal law

Jurisdiction — Consent — Temporality — Municipal law — Whether the revocation of consent to arbitration through the repeal of municipal law affected investments made prior to repeal

Admissibility — Fork-in-the-road clause — Judicial act — Competition law — Whether claims for breach of competition law before municipal courts were the same as the investment treaty claims

Admissibility — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether the exhaustion of local remedies was required — Whether the question was best left to the merits stage

Contract — Legitimate expectation — Legal stability — Competition law — Whether an agreement between the claimants and the State gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the State would not amend competition law

Municipal law — Stabilisation clause — Legitimate expectation — Legal stability — Adverse effect — Whether the claimants had a legitimate expectation to be protected by a stabilisation clause that had been repealed — Whether the claimants had a legitimate expectation to be protected against legislative reform — Whether the claimants demonstrated any adverse effect from legislative reform — Whether it was predictable that the State would undertake reform of its competition law

Fair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Arbitrariness — Denial of justice — Legal stability — Whether changes to competition law were in breach of the investment treaties — Whether alleged harassment and coercion were in breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the claimants were denied justice in the application of competition law by municipal courts

Umbrella clause — Municipal law — Contract — Legal stability — Whether a breach of municipal law could give rise to an investment treaty breach — Whether there was a breach of municipal law — Whether the State agreed not to reform competition law

Fair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Free transfer — Proportionality — Public interest — Whether the claimants had an expectation to make and have the right to dispose of a reasonable return on their investment — Whether the requirement to reinvest all profits was in breach of legitimate expectations — Whether the measure was a proportionate response in the public interest

Remedies — Restitution — Whether restitution was a feasible remedy in the circumstances

Remedies — Damages — Burden of proof — Quantum — Whether the claimants had established the scope of damage they suffered as a result of treaty breach

Remedies — Damages — Future damages — Whether the claim for future loss was premature

Procedure — Addition of a party — Conditional application — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 22 — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 17 — Whether the UNCITRAL Rules or lex loci arbitri allowed for applications to be made conditional on a tribunal’s future decision — Whether the application was consistent with the State’s procedural rights — Whether the amendment to a claim under Article 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules allowed for the addition of a third party as claimant

Jurisdiction — Investment — Shares — Whether an investor’s shares and rights derived from those shares were protected investments under the BIT

Jurisdiction — Investment — Assets of subsidiary — Whether profits, goodwill or know-how of a local subsidiary constituted investments of the investor protected by the BIT

Jurisdiction — Consent — Cooling-off period — Premature claims — Whether the investor had communicated its own claims rather than those of its local subsidiary — Whether the investor’s failure to comply with a waiting period of six months under the BIT required a tribunal to deny jurisdiction or admissibility — Whether the negotiation of a local subsidiary’s dispute in good faith was relevant to jurisdiction over a foreign investor’s claims

Interpretation — Cooling-off period — VCLT, Article 31 — Object and purpose — Whether the object and purpose of the BIT required a tribunal not to adopt a strict or formalistic interpretation of the waiting period of six months

Remedies — Declaratory award — Interpretation — Just compensation — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to make a declaratory award on the interpretation and application of the term “just compensation”

Jurisdiction — Dispute — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to advise the parties of an imminent dispute

Expropriation — Direct deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the State directly deprived the investor of its rights as a shareholder in its local subsidiary

Expropriation — Indirect deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the shares had lost all or almost all significant commercial value — Whether the measures were adopted in the public interest — Whether due process had been followed — Whether there were any undertakings by the State

Expropriation — Interpretation — “Just compensation” — Whether there was any difference between the terms of the BIT and general international law — Whether the meaning of just compensation could be determined in the abstract

Fair and equitable treatment — Whether the impending expropriation constituted a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from shares

Full protection and security — Whether the State failed to protect an investment from expropriation by local authorities — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from shares

Umbrella clause — Whether there was any assurance directed at the investor that created any legal obligations — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from shares

Costs — Arbitration costs — Variation by agreement — UNCITRAL Rules — Whether the terms of the BIT varied the default rules for the allocation of arbitration costs

Procedure — Amicus curiae — ICSID Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules, Article 41(3) — Whether the non-disputing party’s submission provided assistance to the tribunal — Whether the non-disputing party’s submission addressed matters within the scope of the dispute — Whether the non-disputing party had a significant interest in the arbitration — Whether there was public interest in the subject matter of the arbitration — Whether the non-disputing party’s submission created disruption, burden or prejudice affecting the disputing parties — Whether the non-disputing party complied with disclosure requirements

Procedure — Seat of arbitration — Lex loci arbitri — Whether the tribunal was bound to select a seat of arbitration in the State of either party — Whether the tribunal should consider laws of the proposed seat of arbitration regarding arbitrator immunity or quorum requirements — Whether municipal law regarding deference to executive interpretation of treaty law in the event of judicial review of an arbitral award weighed against a proposed seat of arbitration

Jurisdiction — Investment — Foreign investor — Meaning of “relating to” — NAFTA, Article 1101 — NAFTA, Article 1116 — NAFTA, Article 1117 — NAFTA, Article 1139 — Whether the challenged measure related to an investment or an investor — Whether “relating to” required a legally significant connection under municipal law or merely an effect in fact — Whether the claimants’ ability to sell other products was relevant to assessment of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction — Investment — Applicable law — Res judicata — NAFTA, Article 1139 — NAFTA, Article 1136(1) — Whether the concept of res judicata was applicable to NAFTA arbitrations — Whether the conditions were met for res judicata — Whether res judicata could create issue estoppel based on the reasoning of a prior award or only the operative parts of the prior award — Whether distinctions existed between the investment at issue in the prior award and the present arbitration

Jurisdiction — Investment — NAFTA, Article 1139 — Intangible property — Whether a marketing authorisation was an investment made in the territory of the host State

Evidence — Burden of proof — Most-favoured-nation treatment — National treatment — Document production — Whether the evidential burden of proof can shift from the claimant to the respondent due to limited document production

National treatment — NAFTA, Article 1102 — Whether the domestic comparators had been afforded more favourable treatment — Whether the domestic comparators were in like circumstances to the claimants

Most-favoured-nation treatment — NAFTA, Article 1103 — Whether foreign comparators had been afforded more favourable treatment — Whether foreign comparators were in like circumstances — Whether the claimants had been targeted by authorities for political reasons — Whether the conduct of the claimants distinguished their circumstances from foreign comparators

Minimum standard of treatment — NAFTA, Article 1105 — Customary international law — Public health — Due process — Whether the minimum standard of treatment under customary international law required regulatory due process — Whether there was evidence of State practice in favour of regulatory due process forming part of the minimum standard of treatment — Whether an international tribunal should defer to regulatory bodies responsible for protecting public health — Whether regulatory conduct met the required threshold of severity and gravity

Most-favoured-nation treatment — NAFTA, Article 1103 — Minimum standard of treatment — NAFTA, Article 1105 — Non-impairment — Effective means of protection — Whether importing standards of non-impairment and effective means of protection from a BIT would provide more favourable protection than the minimum standard of treatment — Whether a standard of non-impairment would have produced a different outcome for the claimants — Whether the standard of effective means of protection in judicial proceedings applied to a regulatory context

Costs — Loser pays — Whether the tribunal should apply the principle that the loser pays — Whether any party had increased costs by proposing or resisting bifurcation

Jurisdiction — Investment — Minority or indirect shareholding — Parent company — Whether the parent company had any right to the assets of the subsidiary that qualified for protection — Whether the parent company had standing to directly pursue claims to the assets of the subsidiary

Jurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — Interpretation — VCLT, Article 31 — Claims to money — Whether literal analysis of assets listed under the definition of investment in the BIT was sufficient to determine the scope of protected investments — Whether a category of assets may be excluded as an investment by a contextual interpretation of the BIT in light of its object and purposes — Whether the specific examples used in the BIT played a role in determining the scope of protected investments — Whether the listed investments included sovereign bonds — Whether references to corporate bonds and claims to money in the BIT covered sovereign bonds

Jurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Duration — Contribution — Risk — Whether interests in sovereign bonds satisfied an objective approach to investment — Whether holding bonds satisfied the requirement of sufficient duration — Whether holding bonds involved a contribution or mere exchange of value — Whether holding bonds involved an operational risk

Annulment — Failure to state reasons — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Whether the award included reasons to enable the reader to understand how the tribunal got from one point to another — Whether the reasons were contradictory — Whether errors in reasoning determined the outcome

Jurisdiction — Investment — Shares — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Salini test — Municipal law — Whether domestic formalities on investment registration were relevant to jurisdiction — Whether the purchase of shares satisfied the criteria of contribution, duration, risk and economic development

Jurisdiction — Investment — Claims to money — Arbitration award — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether an arbitration award was a claim to money and thus a covered investment

Jurisdiction — Time-bar — Applicable law — Whether time limitations under municipal law were relevant to jurisdiction

Counterclaim — Contract — Jurisdiction — ICSID Convention, Article 42 — ICSID Convention, Article 46 — Applicable law — Whether the BIT permitted free-standing counterclaims based on breach of contract — Whether the applicable law of the contractual counterclaim was relevant to jurisdiction

Admissibility — Res judicata — Issue estoppel — Whether a related contractual arbitration and judicial review of the award under Romanian law precluded claims regarding breach of the BIT

Fair and equitable treatment — Debt restructuring — Freezing bank accounts — Whether the State’s failure to restructure the acquired company’s debts on agreed terms and its acts and omissions in relation to the acquired company’s bank accounts breached the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the breaches of fair and equitable treatment caused the bankruptcy of the acquired company

Expropriation — Debt restructuring — Contract — Whether the State’s failure to restructure the acquired company’s debts on agreed terms was a measure having similar effect to expropriation without compensation — Whether the claimants were entitled to suspend their agreed additional investments in the acquired company

Fair and equitable treatment — Denial of justice — Public policy — Whether the State failed to provide effective means of asserting claims and enforcing rights — Whether a wrong decision was a denial of justice in breach of international law — Whether the judicial annulment of a commercial arbitration award on grounds of public policy was discriminatory or in bad faith

Remedies — Damages — Valuation method — Evidence — Equitable principles — Whether the acquired company was a going concern — Whether it was appropriate to use past cash flow in valuation — Whether there was sufficient evidence to use an unlevered income approach to valuation — Whether quantum of damages could be determined according to equitable objective principles – Whether any reduction should be made for contributory negligence — Whether moral damages were appropriate

Remedies — Interest — Whether it was appropriate to award compound interest

Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Additional Facility — Contract — Waiver — Whether a waiver must be explicit and entered freely — Whether a waiver must be consistent with the public interest pursued by the parties to the BIT

Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Additional Facility — Municipal law — Whether municipal law on foreign investment contained an offer of consent to arbitration

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — Corporate nationality — Good faith — Whether the BIT excluded claims by shell companies — Whether assuming corporate nationality for the purposes of obtaining treaty protections breached good faith requirements — Whether the claimants obtained protection after the dispute

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Additional Facility — Interpretation — Whether the meaning of investment under the ICSID Convention applied in ICSID Additional Facility arbitration

Jurisdiction — Investment — Loans — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Salini test – Whether loans qualified as protected investments

Jurisdiction — Investment — Legality — Municipal law — General principle of international law — Whether a legality requirement was implied by the BIT — Whether a legality requirement was a general principle of investment law

Jurisdiction — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether a requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted could be implied into the BIT — Whether a requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted existed as a matter of customary international law

Fair and equitable treatment — Interpretation — Minimum standard of treatment — Breach of contract — Whether the treaty standard of fair and equitable treatment required a lower threshold for breach than the customary minimum standard of treatment — Whether breach of contract may result in State responsibility for breach of fair and equitable treatment

Fair and equitable treatment — Financial institutions — Whether States were under a duty to warn investors of the condition of the financial system or of a specific bank — Whether the State acted reasonably in its regulatory supervision of financial institutions

State responsibility — Attribution — Central bank — Financial institutions — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 — Direct control — Whether the conduct of a private financial institution was attributable to the State — Whether the supervision of a private financial institution by a central bank rendered its conduct under the direct control of the State

Fair and equitable treatment — Contract — Whether refusal by a State to reduce the workforce was a breach of contract or a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether a refusal by the State to allow a company to scrap obsolete machinery was a breach of contract or a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the refusal by the State to approve refinancing proposals was a breach of contract or a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether delays associated with governmental approval of transfers of funds amounted to a breach of contract or a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment

Fair and equitable treatment — Labour dispute — Whether the support by the State to a labour union amounted to a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the State was under an obligation to publicly support a restructuring plan to which it had agreed — Whether the refusal to approve financing proposals was a matter for the State in its capacity as shareholder or in a public capacity — Whether the State failed to maintain a stable legal and business environment

State responsibility — Attribution — Bankruptcy administrator — Whether the conduct of a bankruptcy administrator was attributable to the State

Full protection and security — Interpretation — Whether the standard of most constant protection and security was equivalent to the standard of full protection and security under international law — Whether the provision of no or inadequate police presence breached the standard — Whether claimants proved loss from breach

Most-favoured-nation treatment — Like circumstances — Whether the standard applied to investments only or also to investors — Whether investors in different industries were in like circumstances — Whether investors in like circumstances were treated more favourably

Free transfer — Whether refusal by the State to approve payments constituted a breach of the treaty standard

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Whether the conduct constituted a deprivation of the economic use and benefit of the investments

Expropriation — Direct expropriation — Judicial act — Whether transfer of title by a bankruptcy administrator constitutes a direct expropriation — Whether a court decision may constitute a judicial expropriation in the absence of a denial of justice

Costs — ICSID Additional Facility — Whether parties should bear their own costs when the State was successful in some jurisdictional objections and the claimants proved breach but no loss